Voting can fail in early stage of voting in case of voter's voting power increase .

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Voting may fail in early stage of voting in case of voter's voting power increase . Proof of Concept In CoreVoting.sol , in terms of voting again the logic in vote function looks like this : // if a user has already voted, undo their previous vote. //...

THIS IS A TEST

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details TESTING REFACTOR Assessed type Context --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

TESTING CHANGE SEVERITY

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details TESTING REFACTOR Assessed type Context --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Honest users could lose funds due to the current implementation of executeProposal()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the InterChainGovernance.sol contract, the executeProposal function lacks an explicit check to ensure that the msg.value provided with the function call is greater than or equal to the nativeValue specified. After an extensive discussion with the...

InterchainProposalExecutor will fail if any proposal requires value transfer, breaking core logic

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Proposals which are sent from a source chain using InterchainProposalSender to a destination chain to be executed using InterchainProposalExecutor are intended to support function calls that include transfers of ETH, or other native token. However, the...

InterchainTokenService.expressReceiveTokenWithData does not apply Check-Effect-Interaction mode

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact InterchainTokenService.expressReceiveTokenWithData does not apply the Check-Effect-Interaction pattern. In some edge cases, the caller can lose funds. Proof of Concept The life cycle of sending token across chains contains 3 phases: //P1: launch on sourc...

Addresses in modifier not set correctly

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Addresses that are mintlimiter but not governance will revert thus being able not to call some functions as intended. Proof of Concept In the comment it was stated that it is either mint limiter or...

Using controlled delegatecall could in calling _deployTokenManager.tokenManagerDeploy()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The use of delegatecall in this context poses a security risk. When using delegatecall, the called contract's code is executed within the context of the calling contract. This means that the deployTokenManager function is executed as if it is part of the...

Accepted proposal may be recreated at the same address with a malicious proposal if there's a self destruct function in the accepted proposal

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A malicious proposal can take over the contract address of the accepted proposal through self-destruct Proof of Concept This issue is regarding the Tornado cash hack, whereby the attacker deploys different contracts at the same address. If the proposal...

MultisigBase.sol : Unsafe onlySigners modifier

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The multi sig based implementation will not serve its purpose. Proposals can be executed even by a single signer. Proof of Concept Contract has the MultisigBase implementation which will be used as a custom multisignature wallet where transactions must b...

M-04 Unmitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details While the fix improves the APR estimation for the case that is described in the finding, it significantly worsens it for other scenarios which may happen in practice when we assume underlying staking protocols with relatively constant APRs. For instance, consid...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #93 [1689707967381]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 93 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-01 - no check on the deployedVaults mapping in the VaultFactory can lead to duplicate vaults being created Mitigation - add an if check to not recreate the same vault: ifdeployedVaultsvault revert.... --- The text w...

Claim failure can result to loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Caller will lose funds through gas fees when claim fails Proof of Concept The claimPrize function allows any caller to claim a prize by providing the necessary parameters: winner address of the winner, tier prize tier, prizeIndex prize index,...

Avoid using the same ERC-165 interface ID for URDs and their callers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description Contracts that implement the LSP-1 standard include INTERFACEIDLSP1 in their supportsInterface function. This means that they have a universalReceiver function that calls a Universal Receiver Delegate URD, such as LSP1UniversalReceiverDelegateUP...

Deposit transaction is prone to being front-run by bad actors.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is possible for an attacker to front-run a user's deposit transaction while transferring fewer amount of assets than the user and minting an equivalent amount of shares as the user could have. Proof of Concept The scenario described below is for the...

Users with DEPLOY permission can grief each other through CREATE2

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description In ERC725XCore.sol, the deployCreate2 function uses Openzeppelin's Create2.deploy to deploy new contracts: ERC725XCore.solL253-L267 function deployCreate2 uint256 value, bytes memory creationCode internal virtual returns bytes memory newContract...

IF THE UNDERLYING ASSET IS A FEE ON TRANSFER TOKEN IT COULD BREAK THE INTERNAL ACCOUNTING OF THE VAULT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Vault.deposit function is used by the users to deposit assets to the vault and mint vault shares to the recipient address. The amount of assets are transferred to the Vault as follows: SafeERC20.safeTransferFrom asset, caller, addressthis,...

initialize function can be front run

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Initialize function have the potential of front running by a malicious actor. An attacker can front-run the deployer and takeover the contract by setting itself as the owner in the Contract. Taking ownership will result in carrying out malicious acts tha...

_amountOut is representing assets and shares at the same time in the liquidate function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the liquidate function from the Vault contract, the input argument amountOut is used as if it was representing a value of asset amount and share amount at the same time which is impossible a there a conversion rate between them, this error will make...

Same proposer can make duplicate proposals

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A proposer can continuously create new proposals, even if they are redundant or unnecessary. This can overload the system and make it difficult for other participants to navigate through legitimate proposals. Proof of Concept In the propose function, the...

[M-05] NounsDAOV3DynamicQuorum.quorumVotes(): Wrong totalSupply parameter used to calculated dynamic votes thresholds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact and Details It is stated in NounsDAOV3Fork.adjustedTotalSupply that the total supply of nouns exclude those in treasury and escrow contract. In NounsDAOV3Proposals.isDefeated, the dynamic threshold is calculated based on adjustedTotalSupply at the time o...

Unused returns on the ds. _withdraw(), NounsDAOLogicV3._withdraw(), and ds.executeFork()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The return value of the external calls are not stores in a local variable or a state variable Proof of Concept The return values do not store the results in a store local or state variable. As a result, the computation have no effect. Code:...

The fork escrow voting should use the snapshot mechanism to save whether the current DAO state reaches the fork threshold

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The fork escrow vote does not use the snapshot mechanism or checkpoint mechanism to save whether the current DAO state reaches the fork threshold, which may cause the timing of the fork to be missed. Proof of Concept Suppose the following scenario: 1. Wh...

The fork mechanism of Nouns DAO may be completely ineffective or abused, because there is no reasonable limit to the maximum or minimum value of the fork threshold.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Nouns Fork is a Last-Resort Minority Protection Mechanism, created to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. As described in this article: . In the initial case, if a quorum of 20% of tokens signals to exit, the fork will succeed, but sin...

Possible Issues Related to Well Initial State

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description && Impact After creating the Well contract, there will be no reserves in the initial state. Therefore it could lead to the following possible issues and the attackers can take advantage of them through front running. 1. Price manipulation attacks Wh...

Well.skim() TRANSACTION CAN BE FRONT RUN BY Well.sync() TRANSACTION THUS MAKING THE Well.skim() CALL INEFFECTIVE

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Well.skim external function is used to transfer the excess tokens held by the well to teh recipient. This is done by calculating the differnce between the contract balance and the reserves for each of the tokens as shown below: skimAmountsi =...

Pool address predictability creates many problems

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Aquifer.boreWell function is responsible for creating new Well. This is done using the LibClone.cloneDeterministic function. The address of the new Well depends solely on the salt and/or immutableData parameter provided by the user. Once a user creat...

NO ACCESS CONTROL IN THE Well.skim() EXTERNAL FUNCTION

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Well.skim external function is used to transfer the excess tokens held by the Well to recipient. But there is no access control in this function and hence anyone can call this function. Therefore this function allows any arbitory user recieve the...

Not using slippage parameter when interacting with AMMs

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The slippage parameters are hardcoded to 0, meaning the minimum amount can be 0. The absence of slippage protection causes transactions to be vulnerable to front running. This can result in users potentially losing their funds. Proof of Concept...

Functions don't update after being called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Without updating the reserve or vault value of tokens after calling different functions, the contract may be prone to inconsistent state, security issues, financial implications, and bad user experience. It is important to review and update the reserve...

Although ERC20Boost.decrementGaugesBoostIndexed function would require user to remove all of her or his boost from a deprecated gauge at once, such user can instead call ERC20Boost.decrementGaugeBoost function for multiple times to utilize such deprecated gauge and decrement its userGaugeBoost for multiple times

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When the gauge input corresponds to a deprecated gauge, calling the following ERC20Boost.decrementGaugeBoost function can still execute gaugeState.userGaugeBoost -= boost.toUint128 if boost = gaugeState.userGaugeBoost is false. function...

Missing deadline checks allow pending transactions to be maliciously executed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In PoolActions.sol, swapToEqualAmounts function has no deadline check for the transaction when swapping. File: src/talos/libraries/PoolActions.sol function swapToEqualAmountsActionParams memory actionParams, int24 baseThreshold internal bool zeroForOne,...

If a STRATEGY TOKEN is "Toggled off" STRATEGIES will still be able to withdraw but returning of tokens with replenishReserves will be disabled.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact BranchPort.manage allows a registered Strategy to withdraw certain amounts of enabled strategy tokens. It validates access rights ie. if called by a strategy registered for the requested token. It however doesn't check if the token itself is currently...

Voting period hardcoded to 3 blocks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Here in the Governance contract, the voting period is locked to 3 blocks. function votingPeriod public pure override returns uint256 return 3; function votingDelay public pure override returns uint256 return 1; This is a direct bug because if we take a...

Wrong proposalThreshold amount in LybraGovernance.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The proposal can be created with only 100000 esLBR delegated instead of 10000000. Proof of Concept According to LybraV2Docs, a proposal can only be created if the sender has at least 10 million esLBR tokens delegated to his address to meet the proposal...

Calls to rigidRedemption can fail due to an underflow when collateralAsset price falls.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When the collateralAsset price falls drastically a wrong collateralAmount is calculated in the line below from the eusdAmount. The collateralAmount calculated can be greater than the amount deposited by the provider in the rigidRedemption. Which leads to...

Exploiter can avoid negative Lido rebases stealing funds from EUSD vaults

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Lybra keeps the exact amount of collateral as deposited ignoring any lido rebases. That allows malicious users to sandwich negative rebase transactions with depositing and withdrawing their stETH saving the exact amount as before negative rebase. Th...

_quorumReached does not add all votes

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact quorumReached is a function that checks if the Amount of votes already cast passes the threshold limit. But the function does not add all votes //@audit-issue quorum reached does not add all votes function quorumReacheduint256 proposalId internal view...

executeFlashloan() doesn't pass/authenticate the initiator address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In PeUSDMainnetStableVision.sol executeFlashloan. File: contracts/lybra/token/PeUSDMainnetStableVision.sol 129 function executeFlashloanFlashBorrower receiver, uint256 eusdAmount, bytes calldata data public payable 130 uint256 shareAmount =...

Proposal remains open to votes for only 3 blocks instead of 7 days

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact LybraGovernance contract only allows to vote during the first 3 blocks after the snapshot is taken. Assuming it takes roughly 12 seconds per 1 block on Ethereum, it is only 36 seconds to decide and vote for a proposal. This would be too fast for a regula...

quorumReached does not account for forVotes

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact quorumReached does not account for forVotes. Proof of Concept The supportVodes mapping of the ProposalExtraData struct consists of three values: forVotes, againstVotes and abstainVotes respectively on keys 0, 1 and 2. The function: function...

users being overcharged or not receiving the full amount of coins as they expected caused by the incorrect calculation of the amount of coins bought

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact in the GetInputPrice function there a line inputAmtWithFee := inputAmt.Mulsdk.NewIntFromBigIntdeltaFee.BigInt tat make a problem so here we have in that line in the GetInputPrice function, the sdk.NewIntFromBigInt function it's takes the big.Int as an...

The calculateWithExactInput uses the same state's values for all transactions in the block

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The calculateWithExactInput uses the same state's values for all transactions. So all checks which should regulate swapped amounts will be broken. It can be a case of asset loss if there will be a significant amount of transactions in one block. Proof of...

There is no deadline for swaps

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the receiver that is specified in the IBC callback doesn't have enough tokens for interacting with the Canto network defaults at 4 CANTO, then the middleware is going to swap the tokens for some CANTO tokens on the Canto network and convert the rest t...

Bypass check with one non-standard denom

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Wrong conditional when checking for non-standard denoms Proof of Concept The conditional is used to sanitize if the denom1 and denom2 are indeed standardDenom see the error in the next line. However, the condition can be bypassed with one of them being...

In case Distributor.setDistribution use, revenue from rToken RevenueTrader and rsr token RevenueTrader should be distributed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In case Distributor.setDistribution use, revenue from rToken RevenueTrader and rsr token RevenueTrader should be distributed. Otherwise wrong distribution will be used. Proof of Concept BackingManager.forwardRevenue function sends revenue amount to the...

THERE IS NO INPUT VALIDATION FOR CRITICAL STATE VARIABLES WHICH COULD BREAK THE CORE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE PROTOCOL

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LlamaAbsoluteStrategyBase.queuingPeriod variable denotes the minimum time in seconds between queueing and execution of action. The LlamaAbsoluteStrategyBase.minExecutionTime returns the block.timestamp + queuingPeriod timestamp. Here queuingPeriod...

_newCastCount can overflow and lead to wrong state

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The method newCastCount only checks for overflow via the two parameters that are passed. If a user were to pass a quantity that is equal to typeuint128.max - currentCount + 1, they could effectively bring the newCastCount value to 0 or to any value they...

The signature "V" length is not checked in castApprovalBySig, CastDisapprovalBySig & createActionBySig

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The length of the "v" value in the signatures is not checked. V must correspond according to ECDSA principles values of either 27 or 28. Not checking this will result in an attacker crafting a malicious v value and bypassing any checks, withdrawing funds...

[ H ] No Validation checks for "v" signature in castApprovalBySig

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact V must correspond according to ECDSA principles values of either 27 or 28. Not checking this will result in an attacker crafting a malicious v value and bypassing any checks, withdrawing funds or accessing the function maliciously. Proof of Concept Craft...