removeDelegation acts on wrong token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function removeDelegationtokenId currently tries to remove tokenId from the list of tokens delegated to itself. The correct behavior would be to get which token tokenId is delegated to, and remove tokenId from the delegations to that token. Since...

Fees are lost after GOLOM token supply limit has been reached

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When the 1 billion supply has been reached for the GOLOM token, addFee in RewardDistributor will automatically return to the start without updating any trades, however will still accept fees being sent from GolomTrader. These fees however cannot be claim...

Impossible to transfer VE tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In VoteEscrowDelegation.sol, function transferFrom will attempt to remove the delegations to the token transferred. // remove the delegation this.removeDelegationtokenId; However this external call will change msg.sender to addressthis, reverting the cal...

Malicious user can cause complete loss of function in AxelarAuthWeighted.sol by matching validators and weights to a previous epoch

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Complete loss of function for both AxelarAuthWeighted.sol and AxelarGateway.sol Proof of Concept if epochForHashnewOperatorsHash 0 revert SameOperators; AxelarAuthWeighted.soltransferOperatorship reverts in L76 if epochForHashnewOperatorHash != 0. This...

Upgraded Q -> M from 264 [1659038303960]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 264 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: L-05 Unbounded loop on array can lead to DoS As these arrays can grow quite large only push operations, no pop, the transaction's gas cost could exceed the block gas limit and make it impossible to call the...

If baseJoin's available balance is greater than callers' amount no underlying will be transferred.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If callers' amount is greater than baseJoin's available balance no underlying will be transferred but caller still gets liquidatorCut. This may also negatively impact the accounting since its updated under the assumption that the caller will transfer...

Incorrect amount of Collateral moves for Auction

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It was observed that the debt and collateral which moves for Auction is calculated incorrectly. In case where line.proportion is set to small value, chances are art will become lower than min debt. This causes whole collateral to go for auction, which wa...

Vault blacklisting is required

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Add a way to blacklist vault from going in Auction. There may be cases where owner does not want a particular Vault to be Auctioned even if it is undercollateralized as shown in POC. Due to lack of any blacklisting all Vault are treated equally and can g...

Incorrect validation check results with always initial proportion to the liquidator.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The liquidator will get the initial proportion of value irrespective how long the time passed. Proof of Concept if duration == typeuint32.max in above condition check need to be checked with "elapsed" not with "duration" . Since it was mentioned that...

Upgraded Q -> M from 358 [1657932899986]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 358 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Attacker Can Front-run auction() To Modify Auctioneer Reward Receiver Address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can front-run the auctioneer’s call to auction with another address to to receive the auctioneer reward instead of the original caller. Proof of Concept 1. Alice wants to liquidate a specific vault. 2. Mallory observes Alice's auction...

Upgraded Q -> M from 253 [1657932404226]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 253 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from 233 [1657954928095]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 233 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Accidentally cancel order

Lines of code Vulnerability details Accidentally cancel order Impact Some market maker's limit order might be accidentally cancelled, and has to be resubmitted again. If the user did not do this on purpose, without knowing the fact that the order has been cancelled, it may lead to unexpected...

Implementation does not exist

Lines of code fd36ce96b46943026cb2dfcb76dfa3f884f51c18/Marketplace/MarketPlace.solL156 Vulnerability details Impact ZcToken.withdraw and ZcToken.redeem will be reverted. Proof of Concept In ZcToken.withdraw and ZcToken.redeem, it calls redeemer.authRedeem. redeemer can be MarketPlace here. But...

Swivel.setFee() is implemented wrongly.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Swivel.setFee is implemented wrongly. Swivel.feenominators won't be set as expected. Proof of Concept This function has a parameter "i" for the index of the new fee denomination but it isn't used during the update. Tools Used Solidity Visual Developer of...

Fee-on-transfer tokens not supported

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Incorrect accounting will lead to wrong assets distribution and some users gaining more and some users getting fewer tokens than they should. Proof of Concept Functions rely on user input to calculate distribution of tokens instead of relying on the...

ISwivel.authRedeem() doesn't have an implementation in Swivel.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ZcToken.withdraw and ZcToken.redeem will always revert because Swivel.sol doesn't contain authRedeem function. Proof of Concept ZcToken.withdraw and ZcToken.redeem call MarketPlace.authRedeem and ISwivelswivel.authRedeem isn't implemented. I think...

Migration total supply reduction can be used to remove minority shareholders

Lines of code Vulnerability details As new total supply can be arbitrary, setting it significantly lower than current say to 100 when it was 1e9 before can be used to remove current minority shareholders, whose shares will end up being zero on a precision loss due to low new total supply value...

Buyout griefing can block almost all functionalities

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Everyone can start a Buyout for a vault by paying only 1 wei. For the next 4 days no other Buyout can start. If someone is fast enough, they can start another griefing buyout as soon as one finishes, meaning that it's possible to block the functionality ...

Call() should be used instead of transfer() on an address payable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Proof of concept Migration.sol L 172 Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps Use call --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Usage of deprecated transfer to send ETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Transaction can revert Proof of Concept The original transfer used to send ETH uses a fixed stipend of 2300 gas. This was used to prevent reentrancy. However, this limit your protocol to interact with others contracts that need more than that to proceess...

Reentrancy issues on function distributePayoutsOf

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the contract JBPayoutRedemptionPaymentTerminal, the function distributePayoutsOf calls the internal function distributePayoutsOf and this internal function perfoms a loop where is using the function distributeToPayoutSplitsOfhttps://githu...

CreateFor#JBProjects.sol is vulnerable to reentrancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reentrancy attack can trick users by spamming incorrect project Id event emission Proof of Concept The function createFor which uses safeMint is lacking any form a reentrancy protection. OZ Safe Mint implementation is function safeMint address to, uint25...

State Variable Shadowing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Check: shadowing-state Severity: High Confidence: High It is possible to use the same variable twice in Solidity, but it can lead to unintended side effects.The TestAllowance.sol contract inherits from TesTBaseWorkflow.sol. In the TestAllowance.sol...

Upgraded Q -> M from 139 [1656985204675]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 139 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: 1. Buyouts that occur during the timestamp wrap will have valuation errors The blockTimestamp has a modulo applied, so at some point, there will be a timestamp with a value close to 2^32, followed by a timestamp...

Orders could be unable to be fulfilled due to insufficient fund/underlying when when filled

Lines of code Vulnerability details Orders could be unable to be fulfilled due to insufficient fund/underlying when when filled Proof of Concept Let's say on day 1, Alice created a long call order for 5 ERC721 Bored Apesid1, id2, id3, id4, id5, with premium 2.5 ETH. But there will be a gap betwee...

GovernorBravoDelegate.sol _initiate() can be called multiple times

Lines of code Vulnerability details Submitting as med risk because documentation inside functions shows that require is there for the purpose of preventing it being called again but is not working correctly, and since we do not have access to the timelock code I cannot fully assess the impact...

A cap is needed on the amount of Note than can be borrowed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The fact that there is no cap on the amount of Note that can be borrowed makes the Oracle Extractable Value unlimited. But as you intend to rely on TWAP, you need to make sure the cost of oracle manipulation is lower than the Oracle Extractable Value...

Centralized mint

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The mint method is too centralized. Proof of Concept Using the mint function of ERC20MinterBurnerDecimals, the minter address can mint arbitrary amount of tokens. If the private key of the owner or minter address is compromised, the attacker will be able...

Upgraded Q -> M from 115 [1656346004435]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 115 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from 184 [1656338695381]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 184 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Functions in the BatchRequests contract revert for removed contract addresses

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Removing Yieldy contract addresses from the contracts array with BatchRequests.removeAddress replaces the contract address with a zero-address due to how delete works. Each function that loops over the contracts array or accesses an array item by index,...

removeAddress doesn't decrease the contracts.length

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contracts length will always increase because the removeAddress function just deleting the value inside the array and never decrease the length by calling pop method. This can lead to Dos when calling functions that doing loop on contracts storage:...

Able to mint any amount of PT

Lines of code Lender.solL192-L235 Lender.solL486-L534 Lender.solL545-L589 Vulnerability details Impact Some of the lend functions do not validate addresses sent as input which could lead to a malicous user being able to mint more PT tokens than they should. Functions affect: Illuminate and Yield...

Staking.setCurvePool() doesn't approve allowance when changes CURVE_POOL.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Staking.setCurvePool doesn't approve allowance when changes CURVEPOOL. It will affect when users exchange asset through CURVEPOOL. Proof of Concept When initialize the contract, Staking contract approves CURVEPOOL here. But when admin updates CURVEPOOL...

Reentrancy vulnerabilities

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reentrancy attacks can allow malicious actors to take over the control flow, and make...

Reentrancy bug in Basket's withdraw multiple tokens function which gives attacker ability to transfer basket ownership and spend it but withdraw all the tokens out of basket

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Basket is used for keep multiple tokens in contract and mint one NFT token to represent their ownership. Basket only allows for owner of NFTid=0 to withdraw tokens from Basket address. users can deposit multiple tokens in one Basket and then create a...

Issue with TWAV calculation.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact To calculate time weighted average value, current valuation is used. This is not appropriate way to decide the TWAV while other locations considers only time. This might not be the stable one. Proof of Concept uint256 currentValuation =...

Malicious NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anybody can create a vault which fractionalizes their NFT. However, this process should go through a whitelist and review process because a maliciously implemented NFT contracts can reclaim ownership of the contract despite it technically being 'owned' b...

Transition notBoughtOut -> boughtOut -> notBoughtOut possible because of updateTWAV

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Because rejectBuyout uses the TWAV, which is time-weighted and updateTWAV can be called, it is possible that notBoughtOut is true at first, then boughtOut is true, and then notBoughtOut is true again. See Proof of Concept for how one can construct such a...

Oracle may be attacked if an attacker can pump the tokens for the entire block

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Attacker may use huge amount of their fund to pump the token in a liquidity pair for one entire block. The oracle will capture the manipulated price as current TWAP implementation may only cover 1 block if timed correctly. First block on every periodSize...

_update function on deployment time isnt actually going to be 30 minutes and you can bypass it

Lines of code Vulnerability details Because timeElapsed = blocktimestamp , on deployment block.timestamp -point.timestamp it can be zero if some calls it right after deployment And block.timestamp 1800 which is true even though its not a pass 30 minutes mitigation have check that updated...

Unnecessary migrate function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no need to have a migrate function in zeroswap as there are no liquidity to vampire attack from. This function introduce a significant rug vector. Proof of Concept function migrateuint256 pid public requireaddressmigrator != address0,...

Stack too deep error within BaseV1-periphery.sol

Lines of code BaseV1-periphery.sol lines 323-341 Vulnerability details Impact Stack too deep error when using remove liquidity function, fixing issue allows for avoiding using optimizations thus increases the periphery contract's longevity/scalability. Proof of Concept function...

Upgraded Q -> M from 44 [1655746452853]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 44 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: 3. Missing/Invalid validation checks Risk Low Impact Function ForgottenRunesWarriorsMinter.setPhaseTimes setups times for different phases of minting. Phases should be launched one after the other. Missing check:...

Admin can set arbitrarily high WETH_TRANSFER_GAS_UNITS which is a fee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can lose their fund by attack from the admins Poc In the function updateWethTranferGasInfinityExchange.sol there is no limit for setting WETHTRANSFERGASUNITS . As this is a kind of fee paid by from the buyers to the contract By definition of the...

Incorrect calculation of startGasPerOrder will cause fund loss to the buyer of the last order due to mischarged gas cost

Lines of code Vulnerability details uint256 gasCost = startGasPerOrder - gasleft + wethTransferGasUnits tx.gasprice; When the orders are matched by the MATCHEXECUTOR, the gas cost of each order is paid by the buyer in WETH, the amount gasCost is calculated based on startGasPerOrder, gasleft and...

NO TIMELOCK ON setProtocolFee() CAN LEAD TO SELLERS LOSING THEIR NFTs

Lines of code Vulnerability details NO TIMELOCK ON setProtocolFee CAN LEAD TO SELLERS LOSING THEIR NFTs In InfinityExchange.sol, there is no timelock on setProtocolFee. This is the fee that is applied in orders, and determines how much the Exchange receives in fee VS how much the seller receives...

Precision Loss During Division

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof-of-Concept Assume that toSwap = 10 DAI and pathLen = 3 in this example. Therefore, the bridge will pull 10 DAI from the RouterFacet contract. However, within the BridgeFacet.handleExecuteLiquidity function, due to precision loss when solidity handles...