Possible problem when mintToken and the user wants to purchase a token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A User can mint tokens even if the payment doesn't succeed. Proof of Concept the contract ERC721Payable uses erc20 to handle payments. When this contract handles the payment of the user , calls the function transferFrom from the ERC20 payableToken variab...

RoyaltyVault.sol is Not Equipped to Handle On-Chain Royalties From Secondary Sales

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Joyn documentation mentions that Joyn royalty vaults should be equipped to handle revenue generated on a collection's primary and secondary sales. Currently, CoreCollection.sol allows the collection owner to receive a fee on each token mint, however,...

Differing percentage denominators causes confusion and potentially brick claims

Lines of code Vulnerability details Details & Impact There is a PERCENTAGESCALE = 10e5 defined, but the actual denominator used is 10000. This is aggravated by the following factors: 1. Split contracts are created by collection owners, not the factory owner. Hence, there is a likelihood for someo...

Ineffective Handling of FoT or Rebasing Tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Certain ERC20 tokens may change user's balances over time positively or negatively or charge a fee when a transfer is called FoT tokens. The accounting of these tokens is not handled by RoyaltyVault.sol or Splitter.sol and may result in tokens being stuc...

Pool Credit Line May Not Able to Start When _borrowAsset is Non ERC20 Compliant Tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact IERC20borrowAsset.transferto, fee; If the USDT token is supported as borrowAsset, the unsafe version of .transferto, fee may revert as there is no return value in the USDT token contract’s transfer implementation but the IERC20 interface expects a return...

Fee in start() can be avoided

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A fee is collected in start that does not get collected if the borrowLimit is reached in lend. Proof of Concept if a start gets called and the amount - fee minBorrowAmount then a fee gets collected before accept is called. if maxLent is met in lend then...

Denial of services in proxy context by setting immutable privileged addresses in constructor in upgradeable contracts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Privileged immutable addresses in LenderPool such as POOLEDCREDITLINE, SAVINGSACCOUNT and VERIFICATION are set in the constructor in the logic contract. These values are run at the time of deployment and affect only the local storage of the logic contrac...

[WP-M11] Wrong implementation of DexManagerFacet.sol#batchRemoveDex() will remove only the first item

Lines of code Vulnerability details function batchRemoveDexaddress calldata dexs external LibDiamond.enforceIsContractOwner; for uint256 i; i dexs.length; i++ if s.dexWhitelistdexsi == false continue; s.dexWhitelistdexsi = false; for uint256 j; j s.dexs.length; j++ if s.dexsj == dexsi removeDexj;...

Potential DoS

Lines of code Vulnerability details the balance of outputToken is checked to be exactly a specified value that is not declared in this specific function. Therefore, a malicious user can transfer to the contract address tiny amount of tokens and the user transactions will always revert. Potential...

Changing a token buy price during the sale by front-running buyers by forcing them to purchase at an unfair token price

This issue has been created to subdivide a multi-part submission to a single, medium severity finding. See issue 50 and in particular, judge @0xleastwood's comment here. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

[WP-H2] EIP712MetaTransaction.executeMetaTransaction() failed txs are open to replay attacks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Any transactions that fail based on some conditions that may change in the future are not safe to be executed again later e.g. transactions that are based on others actions, or time-dependent etc. In the current implementation, once the low-level call is failed...

Incorrect strike price displayed in name/symbol of qToken

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact slice in options/QTokenStringUtils.sol cut a string into stringstart:end However, while fetching bytes, it uses bytessstart+1 instead of bytessstart+i. This causes the return string to be composed of sstartend-start. The result of this function is then...

SingleStrategyController doesn't verify that new strategy uses the same base token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When migrating from one strategy to another, the controller pulls out the funds of the old strategy and deposits them into the new one. But, it doesn't verify that both strategies use the same base token. If the new one uses a different base token, it...

First user can prevent later users receiving collateral shares

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact All users after the first the attacker will receive no collateral shares in return for their deposit, losing their tokens. Proof of Concept On the first mint of Collateral tokens the amount to be minted is equal to the amount of tokens deposited, on late...

Malicious User can Manipulate PreCT Mint Logic with Direct Base Token Transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A bad actor can steal funds from future depositors by sending the base token directly to the Strategy or StrategyController contracts. This exploit is more effective the less shares that have already been distributed, perhaps early into the launch of the...

No use of upgradeable SafeERC20 contract in Controller.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Controller.sol makes use of Open Zeppelins ReentrancyGuardUpgradeable.sol in the file but does not use an upgradeable version of SafeERC20.sol Proof of Concept Tools Used Manual code review Recommended Mitigation Steps Make use of Open Zeppelins...

Possible frontrun on deposits on LiquidityPool

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Rewards are given to a user for depositing either ERC20 tokens or their native token into the LiquidityPool. This reward is used to incentivize users to deposit funds into the liquidity pool when the pool is not in an equilibrium state. For regular users...

An owner can rug pull and or lock users' funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact By implementing malicious versions of the interfaces required by the contracts used in the set functions, an owner can rug pull user positions. Even if the owner is benevolent the fact that there is a rug vector available may negatively impact the...

Frontrunning of setPerTokenWalletCap edge case

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The setPerTokenWalletCap function in WhitelistPeriodManager.sol contains a comment stating: Special care must be taken when calling this function There are no checks for perTokenWalletCap since it's onlyOwner, but it's essential that it should be = max l...

Sending tokens close to the maximum will fail and user will lose tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Proof of Concept When a user calls the deposit function the reward amount is calculated and an event is emited with amount+reward as the transfer amount. The function checks amount is smaller than the m...

Renouncepauser function is dangerous

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If pauser makes an error all the protocol will be unusable Proof of Concept The funtion renouncePauserPausable.sol which affect several contracts is dangerous. function renouncePauser external virtual onlyPauser emit PauserChangedpauser, address0; pauser...

incentivePool increase is broken

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When updating the incentivePool it divides the previous value by BASEDIVISOR. On each update, the incentivePool basically resets itself to only the increment and loses the previous incentive pool. // @audit divides entire previous incentivePool by...

Wrong formula when add fee incentivePool can lead to loss of funds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The getAmountToTransfer function of LiquidityPool updates incentivePooltokenAddress by adding some fee to it but the formula is wrong and the value of incentivePooltokenAddress will be divided by BASEDIVISOR 10000000000 each time. After just a few time,...

DDOS - throttle

Contained in report. Duplicate of 119 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Governance issue - robee

Title: Usage of an incorrect version of Ownbale library can potentially malfunction all onlyOwner functions Severity: High Risk --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

money-market-contracts::overseer: Market ltv is not capped

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no check to ensure that maxltv is less than 100% Decimal::One. It is therefore possible to set a collateral factor of 1, allowing anyone to borrow more than the collateral value ie. enabling under-collateralized loans. While the likelihood of...

bETH rewards can be timed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The bETH reward contract allocates new rewards sent to the contract whenever updateglobalindex is called. It should be possible to time the transfer of the rewards to the contract and frontrun it with increasing one's token balance to capture more reward...

Underflown variable in borrowGivenDebtETHCollateral function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact borrowGivenDebtETHCollateral function does never properly call ETH.transfer due to underflow. If borrowGivenDebtETHCollateral function is not deprecated, it would cause unexpected behaviors for users. Proof of Concept Here are codes which contain a...

Borrowers can get back collateral without repaying loans

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A borrower can put up collateral for a loan then immediately withdraw the collateral, effectively stealing the loan amount from the lender. Proof of Concept The previous implementation from the prior contest used this check in TimeswapPair.pay which...

[WP-H2] When transferring tokens native on SKALE to Ethereum with TokenManagerERC20.exitToMainERC20(), the tokens on the schain will be frozen on TokenManagerERC20, but they will not receive tokens on Ethereum

Lines of code Vulnerability details In the current implementation of TokenManagerERC20, it allows exitToMainERC20tokenOnSchain, amount. At L277 of TokenManagerERC20.sol in exitToMainERC20, if tokenOnSchain is minted on SKALE schain natively, there are no such require statement that prevents the...

Possible underflow when exit to mainnet with full amount after receiving tokens from another schain

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When tokens are transferred from one schain to another schain, the outgoing messages are not transmitted to the mainnet receiver. The amount of tokens on the receiving schain will increase but when exiting on mainnet with the full amount, it will cause...

Centralisation Risk: TokenManager Gives Unnecessary Permissions to The Default Admin Through changeDepositBoxAddress() Which May Cause The Bridge to Get Stuck

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function changeDepositBoxAddress allows the DEFAULTADMINROLE to change the depositBox associated with a TokenManager. If the newDepositBox is incorrectly set either accidentally or maliciously it will cause the bridge to become stuck. For example if ...

buyFromPrivateSaleFor() Will Fail if The Buyer Has Insufficient Balance Due to an Open Offer on The Same NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buyFromPrivateSaleFor function allows sellers to make private sales to users. If insufficient ETH is provided to the function call, the protocol will attempt to withdraw the amount difference from the user's unlocked balance. However, if the same use...

Missing receiver validation in withdrawFunds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CollateralManagement.withdrawFunds function does not validate its to parameter. Funds can be lost if to is the zero address. Similar issues have been judged as medium recently, see Sandclock M-15 / Github issue Recommended Mitigation Steps Check that...

dangerous receive function

Lines of code Vulnerability details the receive function doesn't check the msg.sender is supposed to pay, risking someone to accidentally sending ether and losing it. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

[WP-M6] Inappropriate support of EIP-2981

Lines of code Vulnerability details if nftContract.supportsERC165InterfacetypeIRoyaltyInfo.interfaceId try IRoyaltyInfonftContract.royaltyInfo gas: READONLYGASLIMIT tokenId, BASISPOINTS returns address receiver, uint256 / royaltyAmount / if receiver != address0 recipients = new address payable;...

Creators can steal sale revenue from owners' sales

Lines of code Vulnerability details According to the README.md All sales in the Foundation market will pay the creator 10% royalties on secondary sales. This is not specific to NFTs minted on Foundation, it should work for any NFT. If royalty information was not defined when the NFT was originall...

Auction DOS On The Bidding

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact During the code review, It has been observed that If the bidder is contract, the bidder can make auction infunctional. Proof of Concept 1. Navigate to the following contract. 2. Auction has public function named as placeBid. 3. Example Poc steps can be...

Mapping nftContractToTokenIdToBuyPrice is not deleted correctly

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users that have bought an NFT previously through the NFTMarketBuyPrice functionality will not be able to make use of this functionality again as the nftContractToTokenIdToBuyPrice mapping is not correctly deleted anywhere in the NFTMarketBuyPrice contrac...

Anyone can be _owner

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can be owner by calling initialize Proof of Concept initialize can called multiple times as the name 'initialize' should intended to be called one time when the contract deployed. Nothing prevent it to be called multiple times, and claim the...

Foundation Treasury initialize() function can be called by an attacker first

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In FoundationTreasury.sol the initialize function can only be called once setting the admin and operator roles which are used in other contracts. The problem is that this initialize function is not called in any deployment script which means an attacker...

QA Report

LOW : 1. Title : permitAndMulticall can be frontrun, that will lead to the user must reasign the TX Impact : In the permitAndMulticall it takes from as a user input, since all tx in the blockchain is public, a malicious user might frontrun the permitAndMulticall and providing 0 data, which will...

ClearingHouse looping over dynamic array might result in a DOS because of the block gas limit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Inside the ClearingHouse contract there are multiple instances where it loops over the dynamic amms array. There is no way looping over a subset of the array or continuing for you left off. Thus, if the array is large enough certain functions won't be...

Missing Slippage Checks on ClearingHouse._liquidateMaker()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The liquidateMaker function makes a call to AMM.removeLiquidity but does not provide suitable values for minQuote and minBase. As per the @todo, this call is prone to sandwich attacks, resulting in potentially fewer tokens for the maker. Proof of Concept...

QA Report

LOW : 1. Title : Missing limit on how many AMMs can be added Impact : The governance can add an amm, by calling whitelistAmm function, however there is no limit on how many amm that the contract can be held, if the governance keep adding amm, then the clearing house will brick with out of gas,...

IERC4626RouterBase - withdraw - slippage does not work

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The router does not have the intended behavior: according to the EIP , withdraw burn shares to withdraw exactly assets, so the slippage protection should protect the user from burning too many shares. Furthermore, comments in the interface are incorrect ...

getFeePercentageForSafe may send lower fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact May cause lower fees to be calculated Proof of Concept 1. customFeePercentageForSafe = 100 2. customFeePercentageForCollateral = 200 3. slurp gets call which calls getFeePercentageForSafe as part of its interest calculation 4. getFeePercentageForSafe wil...

Use of external calls without reentrancy modifers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In TWAPDelegator.sol functions like updateDelegatee and createDelegation have external calls without the use of reentrancy modifiers. These modifiers can serve as a strong security tool to prevent attacks when using external calls. Proof of Concept Tools...

The initialize() function can be called first by an attacker

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Delegation.sol the initialize function sets the owner of the contract and can only be called once. The problem is that an attacker can monitor the blockchain byte code and call the initialize function first automatically before the protocol has a chan...

Withdrawals can be spammed and other users blocked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The VUSD.processWithdrawals function only performs maxWithdrawalProcesses actually maxWithdrawalProcesses + 1 iterations per call. Withdrawals can be freely spammed by a griefer calling burnamount with a zero amount. All future withdrawals are blocked...