_transferFromCaller is not compatible with USDT and similar tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details transferFromCaller is not compatible with USDT and similar tokens Summary Setting directly typeuint256.max won't work for USDTTether. This is done at both transferFromCaller: NFTDriver.solL289 AddressDriver.solL174 Description Some tokens like USDT do not work...

Reentrancy due to lack of check-effect-interact pattern by valid Driver users

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In a Re-entrancy attack, a malicious contract calls back into the calling contract before the first invocation of the function is finished. This may cause the different invocations of the function to interact in undesirable ways, especially in cases wher...

No-check liquidity is != 0

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Proof of Concept Tools Used manual Recommended Mitigation Steps --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Unprotected payable functions in Payment.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Payment.sol contract unwrapWETH and sweepToken functions are without any access control. They are public and and doesn't validate that it's being called by any permissioned account. The result is that anyone can steal tokens. Proof of Concept 25:...

Wrong modifier

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact H-01 The modifier that is declared in RabbitHoleReceipt.sol and RabbitHoleTickets.sol files has no impact and has not protection to methods that is used for. This modifier is used in 3 functions. Having no check would mean that this modifier will always ...

User's claim can revert when attackers call withdrawFee several times

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact withdrawFee can be called several times, so attackers can use this to drain Erc20Quest's balance. Proof of Concept When the admin calls withdrawRemainingTokens, protocolFee + unclaimedTokens left in the Erc20Quest contract. If unclaimedTokens =...

Modifier onlyMinter() implementation is faulty

Lines of code Vulnerability details The current implementation of the modifier onlyMinter will not revert because the "require" part is missing, therefore any user will be able to access the minting functions in RabbitHoleTickets.sol and RabbitHoleReceipt.sol. Impact Any user than the allowed...

Mitigation of M-06: Issue not mitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details The sponsor disputes the issue, but never follows up after judge's comments, so the same issue remains in the new code. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Orders may not be fillable due to missing approvals

Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings36 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Loss of ETH for proposer when it is a contract that doesn't have fallback function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings40 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Lack of access control in certain functions within TimeswapV2LiquidityToken & TimeswapV2LiquidityToken contracts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The TimeswapV2Token & TimeswapV2LiquidityToken contracts lack proper access control in sensitive functions such as mint, burn, collectFees, and updateFees. There is no modifier or "require" to check if the caller is allowed to call these functions. This...

Improper check for Zero Address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. There is an error in the if statement of the referenced line of code. It should check for zero address and return an error. This will prevent the creating a new contract for an existing option pair, eve...

TOKEN CAN BE LOCKED WHEN THE _mint function is called to mint token to a contract that does not support the ERC1155

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Use safeMint intead of mint. The mint function of the TimeswapV2Token.solL110 calls the mint function of the ERC1155. If the token receiver is a contract that does not support ERC1155, the token is locked. Proof of Concept see: If the recipient contract...

[H-01] Lack of access control allow attacker to transferTokenPositionFrom()with other user's wallet balance

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This issue allows anyone to transferTokenPositionFrom and steal almost all their wallet balances for all the users who have approved the contract before. Proof of Concept Funds are transferred from the from parameter, and the output tokens are transferre...

QA Report

See the markdown file with the details of this report here. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from #229 [1674661441196]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 229 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Support for IERC165 interface id is missed Contract: Impact: Contract fails to support a valid interface which could lead to failure of genuine calls Steps: Observe the supportsInterface function...

Deployer will deploy proxies that cannot be upgraded

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In contrast to the Test File, in which you're deploying the proxies directly, the setup from Deployer will keep the Proxy Admin to a zero value. Meaning nobody will be able to upgrade them after the deployment. See POC below to show that the admin slot i...

A malicious user can call transferWithdrawReserve() multiple times to modify s.withdrawReserve

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function PublicVault.soltransferWithdrawReserve is meants to transfers funds from the PublicVault to the WithdrawProxy. However, this function has no access control, anyone can call it multiple times to modify the withdrawReserve value Proof of Conce...

mintFee can be set to 100%

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The mintFee can be set to 100%. An amount of centralization over the usual is to be expected in a protocol that deals with RWAs and requires KYC but being able to set the fee to 100% is unnecessary, dangerous, and could harm Ondo's reputation. Proof of...

Wrong logic totalBurned is not updated after _processRefund() results in loss of funds for redeemers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function completeRedemptions is used by admin account to distribute collateral to users and also to refund redemption requests if the redemption cannot be serviced. function completeRedemptions address calldata redeemers, address calldata refundees,...

SmartAccount implementation contract can be destroyed by anyone

Lines of code Vulnerability details SmartAccount implementation contract can be destroyed by anyone Impact Locking all user's funds forever due to DoS for all functions. Proof of Concept There are 2 main reasons for this vulnerability: 1. The expected behaviour of interacting with the...

Destruction of the SmartAccount implementation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description If the SmartAccount implementation contract is not initialized, it can be destroyed using the following attack scenario: Initialize the SmartAccount implementation contract using the init function. Execute a transaction that contains a single...

Attacker can gain control of counterfactual wallet

Lines of code Vulnerability details A counterfactual wallet can be used by pre-generating its address using the SmartAccountFactory.getAddressForCounterfactualWallet function. This address can then be securely used for example, sending funds to this address knowing in advance that the user will...

Upgraded Q -> M from #173 [1673098404536]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 173 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03 - Depreciating-soon selfdestruct is used to transfer funds to seller after sale ends. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from #3 [1673008410396]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 3 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: MAXSUPPLY of RuniverseLand could be reached before RuniverseLandMinter mints all tokens because of secondary minter RuniverseLand has a MAXSUPPLY of 70000, which is also the sum of all plotsAvailablePerSize within...

RuniverseLand.sol#mint() can be bricked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact RuniverseLand.solmint can be bricked. Proof of Concept The mint function uses numMinted to generate the tokenId: File: RuniverseLand.sol 72: function mintaddress recipient, PlotSize size 73: public 74: override 75: returns uint256 76: 77: uint256 tokenId...

NFT operators of OpenZeppelin-based NFTs can issue debt

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The Papr protocol allows NFT owners to issue debt against NFTs they deposit, denominated in papr. The solmate contracts that are used as imports for the project do not allow an operator on the NFT to participate in debt-creation; the ERC721 contract...

NFT owner only is allowed for liquidation, this may not work for all the cases, the debt can be insolvent

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When bad debt is not paid or not able to recover the through auction of NFT, then the debt will be insolvent. Proof of Concept Contract allows for liquidation to recover the debt. Also, it has the auctioning mechanism to recover the debt by selling the...

There is no way to extract fees when someones wants to reduce a debt by paying with underlying tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a user is buying the debt of an account or its own debt, it either have the choice to use the reduceDebt function in order to pay with PAPR tokens, or by paying in underlying tokens can be USDC, WETH, .... A protocol that would choose to...

totalCollateralValue in maxDebt may not be calculated correctly everytime

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact totalCollateralValue in maxDebt may not be calculated correctly sometimes which leads to questionable lending procedures. Proof of Concept Bob has 10 BAYC NFTs, one of which is an extremely rare one with a crown and a rainbow body, which costs about 150...

attacker can create un collateralized debt by reentrancy attack during _removeCollateral() by removing all collaterals and liquidating the last one which would set debt to zero. unfair liquidation can happen with reentrancy too

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function removeCollateral removes collateral from msg.senders vault and code allows for onReceive hook to sell and repay debt before the debt check. during the hook function user can call other function of the PaprController contract, it's possible for...

PUNK does not conform to ERC721 standard hence safeTransferFrom from solmate does not work

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since protocol's intended NFT target is PUNK currently, the protocol will be hugely affected. Proof of Concept Attempts to transfer the NFT is done in 2 places. 1. removeCollateral 2. purchaseNFT Firstly, this means that once a collateral is added to the...

setFundingPeriod leads to Price control

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Attacker can use two different addresses to borrow from himself at different interest rates. Proof of Concept AS the papr interest rates and the papr trading price are in a constant feedback loop. Interest rates are programmatically updated on chain as a...

Upgraded Q -> M from #22 [1671528877220]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 22 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: minBidPrices is rounded down --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Early user can break the minting of LP Tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The attack vector is the same as TOB-YEARN-003, where users may not receive liquidity tokens in exchange for their baseTokenAmount and fractionalTokenAmount deposited if the total baseTokenAmount has been manipulated through a large “donation”. In the...

Only one GroupBuy can ever use USDT or similar tokens with front-running approval protections

Lines of code Vulnerability details Calling approve without first calling approve0 if the current approval is non-zero will revert with some tokens, such as Tether USDT. While Tether is known to do this, it applies to other tokens as well, which are trying to protect against this attack vector...

Missing approval check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The lpToken.mint function is called with the msg.sender as the recipient, but there is no check to ensure that the sender has approved the contract to transfer the fractional tokens on their behalf. If the lptoken.mint function is missing a che...

LP pricing formula is vulnerable to flash loan manipulation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The LP pricing formula used in the buyQuote, sellQuote, addQuote, removeQuote functions of Pair.sol contract is vulnerable to flash loan manipulation. Proof of Concept The baseTokenReserves calculates the current balance of base token reserves. This...

Upgraded Q -> M from #334 [1671456734920]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 334 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Collateral.withdraw allows the manager to withdraw an arbitrary amount of baseToken from Collateral. The only check is in the ManagerWithdrawHook.hook call, where it checks the withdrawal does not drop the amount of...

OptimisticListingSeaport.propose sets pendingBalances of newly added proposer instead of previous one

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In OptimisticListingSeaport.propose, pendingBalances is set to the collateral. The purpose of this is that the proposer of a previous proposal can withdraw his collateral afterwards. However, this is done on the storage variable proposedListing after the...

Unchecked setters

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Incorrect data: If the 'referred' or 'protocol' variables are set to incorrect values, it could result in incorrect or unexpected behavior in the contract. Manipulation: Malicious actors could potentially exploit this vulnerability to manipulate the syst...

In case the winner is the address(0)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Temporary freezing NFT this can be more than one period Proof of Concept On VRFNFTRandomDraw.fulfillRandomWords 254 request.currentChosenTokenId = 255 randomWords0 % tokenRange + 256 settings.drawingTokenStartId; In case ownerOfrequest.currentChosenToken...

Draw organizer can rig the draw to favor certain participants such as their own account.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In RandomDraw, the host initiates a draw using startDraw or redraw if the redraw draw expiry has passed. Actual use of Chainlink oracle is done in requestRoll: request.currentChainlinkRequestId = coordinator.requestRandomWords keyHash:...

Use of resignOwnership can lead to stuck NFT in contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Contract OwnableUpgradeable has a resignOwnership function that, if called, can potentially cause the loss of the NFT after a draw has been started. Proof of Concept These are the steps/conditions that make this issue happen: When the owner calls...

_priceData.price is not verified in _limitClose

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the function limitClose from the TradingExtension contract the priceData.price is not verified with the getVerifiedPrice function instead its value is directly used, and because the the getVerifiedPrice internally calls the function...

Wrong update of stoploss in TradingExtension._limitClose()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact TradingExtension.limitClose returns a wrong stoploss which is favorable for users and it would be a significant loss for the protocol. Proof of Concept TradingExtension.limitClose is used to set takeprofit/stoploss prices for the pending order and execut...

Attacker can disable contract functionality

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Current setup of the protocol is vulnerable to a DoS attack. This can be achieved by anyone calling initialize on the implementation VRFNFTRandomDraw contract. With the implementation contract initialized the created clones cannot be re-initialized and...

PrePOMarket.redeem() business logic may raise users' concerns of their assets

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a user tries to redeem assets, current business logic may fail and pop the error msg fee = 0 repeatedly. Users may not understand what's happening behind, thus raise concers about the safety of their assets since it looks like their assets are out o...

Insufficient support for fee-on-transfer type of ERC20

Lines of code Vulnerability details Some ERC20 token implementations have a fee that is charged on each token transfer. This means that the transferred amount isn't exactly what the receiver will get. A call to IERC20token.transferrecipient, 100 with a fee-on-transfer FOT of 5% will entitle the...

Value can be extracted from LPs

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Maverick allow liquidity to be moved based on TWAP to increase capital efficiency. However, the increased capital efficiency is not free. Consider a "right" move, the LP sell at lower price and move their liquidity to higher price, thus buying at higher...