Anyone can be refunded; no input validation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The method for processing refunds has no input validation. If Bob burns 100 CASH and Alice burns 1 CASH, and the manager wants to refund Alice and pay out Bob, they are able to swap the refund parameters. This would result in Alice getting the entire...

CASH token cannot be transferred among users and accounts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since the CASH token cannot be transferred unless it is explicitly allowed, the users cannot send tokens between accounts, trade it on DEXes, or integrate it into their protocols. This is a non-standard behavior that should be reported to them. Proof of...

Calling execute() and executeBatch() functions in SmartAccount.sol from the EntryPoint will fail

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function requireFromEntryPointOrOwner is being called within the execute and executeBatch functions to check if the msg.sender is either the owner or the EntryPoint contract, but these functions have onlyOwner modifier, which will only allow the owne...

Front-running of the relayers transaction

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description While the relayer has a positive outcome from the execution of some of the user operations through gas refund it is profitable for the attacker to front-run such transactions with a full copy of those. In such a case attacker receives a positive...

SmartAccount wallet creation can be backdoored

Lines of code Vulnerability details At wallet creation time, an attacker can temporarily swap the address of the entrypoint to install a backdoor in the form of a registered module in the wallet. Since wallets don't necessarily need to be created by their owners, an attacker can frontrun the wall...

Theft of funds under relaying the transaction

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The execTransaction function is designed to accept a relayed transaction with a transaction cost refund. At the beginning of the function, the startGas value is calculated as the amount of gas that the relayer will approximately spend on the...

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...

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...

handleAggregatedOps() does not handle non-atomic transactions which results in whole function revert if one transaction does not go through

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function reverts if one account or paymaster is not validated, which leads to a waste of time and gas. Proof of Concept EntryPoint.UserOpsPerAggregator takes in an array of opsPerAggregator in its parameter and loops through each struct. In the function,...

Upgraded Q -> M from #216 [1673172689834]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 216 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Last collateral check is not safe --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Malicious user can use previously used nodeID to prevent user(s) from withdrawing minipool funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details In createMinipool, an event is emitted with details of a newly created minipool. This includes relevant information that a subsequent user can utilise to create another minipool.The only condition that prevents a minipool from being created again with the same...

getStakers() and getMinipools() could return wrong values (Access Control)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Staking.sol and MinipoolManager.sol contracts use the eternal storage pattern. The contracts are a key-value store that all protocol contracts can write to and read. more info: Functions getStakers.staking and getMinipools.MinipoolManager are implemented...

Increase in ERC4626 shares due to inflation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. A bad actor can exploit the Vault by depositing a small amount of asset tokens 1 wei and receiving 1 wei of shares tokens. The attacker can then send a large amount of asset tokens 10000e18 - 1 to infla...

A BETTER APPROACH TO REVERTING CODE LINES ON _ADDCOLLATERALTOVAULT() AND _REMOVECOLLATERAL()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In PaperControl.sol, callers would have to deal with function pre-maturely reverting upon encountering an element in collateralArr failing to pass the if statement in the function logic of addCollateralToVault and removeCollateral. The amount of gas wast...

Contract owner can drain all NFT collateral

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact To add NFTs as collateral to the protocol and it to create debt, the owner has to approve each NFT contract address first. As anyone can create their own papr vaults with arbitrary allowed NFTs by design, this opens the possibility for malicious actors t...

Signature mallebaility in underwritePriceForCollateral

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact underwritePriceForCollateral has signature malleability as it doesn't check for a returned address of not 0. Value can be set to 0 oracleSigner Proof of Concept function underwritePriceForCollateralERC721 asset, PriceKind priceKind, OracleInfo memory...

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...

function underwritePriceForCollateral() uses message.timestamp > block.timestamp to validate oracle message timestamp but it can create MEV as miners can control block.timestamp and revert some of the user's transactions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function underwritePriceForCollateral validates the oracle message which includes the price of the NFT and returns the price of an asset from a signed oracle message. to check the validity of the message's timestamp code checks that if...

Borrowers may earn auction proceeds without filling the debt shortfall

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The proceeds from the collateral auctions will not be used to fill the debt shortfall, but be transferred directly to the borrower. Proof of Concept Assume N is an allowed NFT, B is a borrower, the vault V is vaultInfoBN: 1. B add two NFTsN-1 and N-2 as...

[M-0] Unhandled return values of transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details c4udit Report Issues found M-0 Unhandled return values of transfer Impact Some implementations of transfer could return ‘false’ on failure instead of reverting. Findings: src\Pair.sol::85 = transferFrommsg.sender, addressthis, fractionalTokenAmount;...

NOT refunding excess token while adding liquidity

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact LP providers can lose fund Proof of Concept Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps incase of ether, return excess ether - incase of erc20, transfer only required amount - --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: 😕 1 Shun...

Price manipulation if baseToken have transfer hook

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Pair calculate the price by dividing the fractional token reserve with base token reserve. If the token have a before transfer hook, there would be a time where the fractional token reserves changed but the base token reserve have not, where the executio...

Unlimited minting of fractional tokens by calling Pair.wrap() multiple times

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User can mint an unlimited amount of fractional tokens and break the protocol by selling the tokens. Proof of Concept NFTs can be traded for 1e18 fractional tokens by calling the function wrap. Wrap calls validateTokenIdstokenIds, proofs which in turn ru...

Incorrect rounding in buyQuote

Lines of code Vulnerability details The function buyQuote present in the Pair contract is used to calculate the amount of base tokens required to buy a given amount of fractional tokens. function buyQuoteuint256 outputAmount public view returns uint256 return outputAmount 1000 baseTokenReserves /...

PRICES CAN BE MANIPULATED WHEN LIQUIDITY IS VERY LOW

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Base and fractional token prices in the pool can be manipulated and set to values severely deviating from the originally intended price ratio right after the pool has been created. At this point, liquidity in the pool is deemed zero or exceptionally thin...

Invalid tokens can be added to the pair

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact merkleRoot is a bytes32 and it is compared to bytes230 which makes it possible for a non-zero merkleRoot to be set in the constructor and yet still all tokens will be declared as valid Proof of Concept Tools Used Manual Audit Recommended Mitigation Steps...

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...

Lack of validation on price feeds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Lack of validation on Chainlink price feeds may result in incorrectly functioning or non-functioning protocol. For example: during high volatility a price feed may be suspended or become stale; on L2 networks the sequencer might be down on L2 networks th...

After the redrawing the winner can lose his NFT for the Admin

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner can manipulate the raffle by deprivation of a specific address winner Proof of Concept Please copy the following POC on VRFNFTRandomDraw.t.sol function testadminRedrawingandReclaimnft public address winner = address0x1337; address winner2 =...

Malicious ChainLink's VRF manager can decide to not whitelist VRFNFTRandomDraw or brick ongoing raffles

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ChainLinks VRF manager has priviledged position, as all VRFNFTRandomDraw instances share the same VRFCoordinatorV2 address, and have to be whitelisted in order to be able to send requestRandomWords function. There is centralization risk in this case, tha...

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...

reentrancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If an attacker were able to successfully exploit a reentrancy vulnerability in this contract, they could potentially cause the contract to enter an infinite loop, consuming all available gas and rendering it unusable. This could result in financial losse...

Chainlink price feed is not sufficiently validated and can return stale price

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As mentioned by , "Prices provided by the oracle network are also compared to Chainlink's public price feeds for additional security. If prices have more than a 2% difference the transaction is reverted." The Chainlink price verification logic in the...

Users can get free collateral when using non-reverting on failure baseTokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A user calling Collateral's deposit function when baseToken is a non-reverting on failure ERC20 token, can get an arbitrary amount of collateral without actually depositing a single base token in the contract. function depositaddress recipient, uint256...

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...

PrePOMarket.sol : a sender who is not included in the account list can front run and mint prior to setting the _mintHook

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact a sender who is not included in the account list can front run and mint prior to setting the mintHook. Proof of Concept The contract says, Minting will only be done by the team, and thus relies on the mintHook to enforce access controls. This is also why...

A finding that cannot be disclosed at the moment

Lines of code Vulnerability details This finding couldn't be disclosed at the time when the contest was running. After consulting with CloudEllie, it was decided to create a stub report so the finding could be submitted after the contest is over. A checksum of the report:...

There is no option to cancel an EMERGENCY mode.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no option to cancel an EMERGENCY mode in the pool. Once the pool is in an EMERGENCY mode, the pool can't work as normal forever. Proof of Concept The pool can be changed to an EMERGENCY mode by adminAction. function adminActionuint256 action,...

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...

underflow in the getPrice() function can block the buy and refund in the LPDA sale

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LPDA sale the price decrease in values after each second, and when creating the sale the value of the lowest price possible is not checked, so the price could go below zero at a given timestamp which will lead to an underflow in the getPrice...

LPDA refund logic is broken, meaning buyers always get lowest price sale

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol intends the LPDA to refunds buyers with the difference between the price they paid and the last sale price Once the sale has ended, the users must call refund to get their Ether refunds based on their purchase price and lowest sale price 99:...

CrossChainExecutorPolygon does not implement the executeCalls function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CrossChainExecutor contracts in the codebase are meant to follow the CrossChainExecutor interface as defined in EIP-5164. Each L2 network specific CrossChainExecutor contract is also expected to inherit and follow the ICrossChainExecutor interface...

compound could be used by uniswap stakers to maximize fees for AutoPxGmx users

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call AutoPxGmx::compound. Hence a staker in the 10000 1% fee uniswap pool can call compound with that pool and take a larger fee from AutoPxGmx users maximizing their gains and griefing users. Proof of Concept fee chooses which uniswap pool to...

Lack Of Proper Access Control Might Lead To User Getting Lesser Rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact We can call the function userAccrue for some other user and make their rewards lesser then they expect. In the function it calculates the rewards for a user that are being accrued over a period of time. The math to calculate how much reward a user has...

Price manipulation can lead to users lossing funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details H Price manipulation can lead to users lossing funds Impact Early malicious user will profit from future users' deposits while future users' will loose funds/value. Proof of Concept An early user can call the deposit function of any of the ERC4626 vaults with...

Need to check the _mint() status before increment the token count .

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Its possible to increase the tokenIdTracker even mint function failed. The mint status must be checked before increment tokenIdTracker value . Proof of Concept function registeraddress recipient public onlyUnregistered returns uint256 tokenId address...

Upgraded Q -> M from #307 [1669043813221]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 307 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-1. Wrong comparison sign Description The function swapAVAXForExactTokens will revert when msg.value amountsIn0 because amountsIn0 - msg.value will always cause underflow. Solidity version ^0.8.0 is used, so it will...

A malicious user can steal all the excess balance on the pool by calling the execute function with higher amount than the selling amount

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When an order is matched, the Buyer has the option to pay in either ETH, WETH or via the Pool contract. The Exchange smart contract implements a function returnDust which returns the extra ETH to the user, if she overpays. The function is implemented in...

Broken Upgradable Logic in Pool.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Pool smart contract allows a user to predeposit ETH so that it can be used when a seller takes their bid. It uses an ERC1967 proxy pattern and only the exchange contract is permitted to make transfers. The smart contract inherits the...