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 ...

mintReceipt should not allow users to mint after the end of a quest

Lines of code Vulnerability details mintReceipt currently does not have any check that the questId passed as an argument corresponds to an active quest. As the signature will be valid without a deadline, a user can call mintReceipt after the end of a quest, when there is no more funds in the Ques...

hash and signature_ can be obtained from the mempool when recoverSigner is executed

Lines of code Vulnerability details In the QuestFactory.sol contract, an attacker can monitor the mem pool and obtain the values of hash and signature which the other user has provided to the function Proof of Concept 210-213: function recoverSignerbytes32 hash, bytes memory signature public pure...

Bad modifier definition

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The modifiers holding the name "onlyMinter", defined in the "contracts/RabbitHoleReceipt.sol" and "contracts/RabbitHoleTickets.sol" files do not implement an if or require checks. The lack of checking means that the modifiers do nothing about regulating...

Incorrect calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact On line 119, the result of the conversion is always going to be zero. Therefore, functions that apply onlyDriver modifier will never be executed. Proof of Concept Please deploy the code below to test the modifier's broken implementation. //...

Mitigation of M-01: Issue not mitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details The sponsor appears to confirm with no-fix and did not provide any PRs addressing it, so the same issue remains in the new code. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

GroupBuy may purchase NFT not in the allowed list

Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings14 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Using V2-Pool, user can loose money after minting, then burn due to duration calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users loose money over time after mint using V2-Pool due to the protocol duration calculation. The current duration calculation is calculated from now to maturity. So when the user mint, then burn the liquidity, with time the amount of short he get is...

Gas Optimizations

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

User can open position without depositing tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User can mint long/short tokens without depositing anything. This is because the function on LN 172 doesn't check the contents of the returned data from the function, and the function doesn't verify that the contract has indeed received the expected...

_locateCurrentAmount function, there is an assembly operation that is dividing by duration without a zero check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the locateCurrentAmount function, there is an assembly operation that is dividing by duration without a zero check, which could cause a division by zero error. Proof of Concept // Check for division by zero requireduration != 0, "Division by zero...

Threat: Replay attack vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The code does not check for the possibility of a replay attack on the contract, if the same order hash is being used multiple times Proof of Concept A replay attack is a type of attack where an attacker intercepts a valid transaction and resends it...

function withdraw() in StRSR won't update contract state (totalDrafts) in all cases which can cause wrong fund distribution and fund stucking in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function withdraw complete an account's unstaking. it transfers user draft withdrawals and updates totalDrafts. but when calculated rsrAmount is 0 code returns and won't updates totalDrafts which can cause wrong calculations as those draft items removed...

High Severity Reentrancy Vulnerability in stateTransition Modifier

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Lack of reentrancy protection in the stateTransition modifier occurs in the following line of code. modifier stateTransitionTradeStatus begin, TradeStatus end requirestatus == begin, "Invalid trade state"; status = TradeStatus.PENDING; ; assertstatus ==...

Baited by redemption during undercollateralization (no issuance, just transfer)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This is similar to the "high" vulnerability I submitted, but also shows a similar exploit can be done if a user isn't a whale, and isn't issuing anything. A user can send a redeem TX and an evil actor can make it so they get almost nothing back during...

Redeemers will receive less collateral than expected if function completeRedemptions() is called with empty refundees list

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,...

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...

Upgraded G -> 3 from #31 [1673740145531]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 31 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: tetaegerageage --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

validateUserOp does not check if missingAccountFunds matchs the signature

Lines of code Vulnerability details validateUserOp function does not check to see if missingAccountFunds uint256 matchs the signature or not . this can be abused if an attacker front run the tx and call validateUserOp in entrypoint using same sig but with a different missingaccountfunds number...

Proxy creation isn't check in deployWallet function of SmartAccountFactory contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details The deployWallet function present in the SmartAccountFactory contract deploys a new wallet by creating a Proxy that points to a base implementation using assembly. function deployWalletaddress owner, address entryPoint, address handler public returnsaddress pro...

Replay attack on different batchId

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The execTransaction function includes an input parameter called batchId that is used to determine the nonce which is included in the data signed by the owner. However, batchId is not part of the signed data. This allows any third party to replay a...

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...

Unsafe Storage Layout

Lines of code Vulnerability details Potentially lead to storage collision and cause the account to be re-initialized or have ownership transferred. Use upgradeable DiamondStorage for all inherited contracts. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

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...

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from #172 [1673039408650]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 172 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-02 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from #22 [1673008163388]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 22 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-01 ERC721Vestable.setVestingStart should check newVestingStartvestingEnd. function setVestingStartuint256 newVestingStart internal virtual //@Audit requirevestingEnd newVestingStart, "End must be greater than start"...

SLASH LOGIC INAPPROPRIATELY IMPLEMENTED

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The slash logic in the protocol has overlooked the following two issues: slashminipoolIndex is only called when avaxTotalRewardAmt is equal to 0 which forgoes all other low performing instances even if the node operator has only brought in 1 wei of AVAX...

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from #188 [1671981716625]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 188 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 188 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Faulty fee handling in buyAndReduceDebt

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When passing fee params to buyAndReduceDebt with swapFeeTo and swapFeeBips, the PaprController will try to send the underlying token on the following line: underlying.transferparams.swapFeeTo, amountIn params.swapFeeBips / BIPSONE; But in a normal state,...

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...

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...

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...

User loses collateral converted to pendingBalance when cash() or list() is called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In OptimisticListingOpensea, there are several functions which update pendingBalances of a proposer: 1. list 2. cash 3. propose Unfortunately, in list and cash the = operator is used instead of += when writing the new pendingBalances. For example:...

Any user which holds Raes tokens can infinitely freeze NFT in OptimisticListingSeaport

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description OptimisticListingSeaport exposes propose method to create new proposal, and rejectProposal to remove a listing in proposal stage. In propose, proposer commits a certain amount of collateral: // Sets collateral amount to pending balances for withdraw...

Pair.sol can be manipulated to affect small liquidity providers.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first minter can manipulate the supply of LP tokens and baseToken-fractional ratio, hindering small liquidity providers from interacting with the pair. A malicious actor can mint 1wei of LP token from a new pair, then proceed to transfer baseToken to...

Stealing liquidity provider's fund by manipulating the reserve

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can steal liquidity provider's fund by manipulating the reserve. During adding a liquidity, the amount of lpToken to be minted will be calculated in the function addQuote. function addQuoteuint256 baseTokenAmount, uint256 fractionalTokenAmoun...

Possible Reentrancy Vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Add function, in case of non Eth Base Token, LP Tokens are minted for LP Provider before transferring the Base Token from Provider to Contract. In remove function, Fractional Tokens are Transferred to LP Provider before Burning the LP Token. In wrap...

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 /...

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...

Reentrancy issue #2: Functions remove() and sell() are vulnerable to reentrancy attack if baseToken implement a call to receiver in _beforeTokenTransfer().

Lines of code Vulnerability details It is important to be aware that I have reported two reentrancy bugs. Each of these have different ways of being activated and can be found in separate functions. Impact All calculations done in Caviar Pair are using token balance directly. For example, when...

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...

Reentrancy in GroupBuy.purchase allows buying NFT twice

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In GroupBuy.purchase, poolInfopoolId.success which prevents buying the same NFT again is only set to true after the sale was executed. This can be exploited by reentering in the following line: address vault = IMarketBuyermarket.executevalue:...

Upgraded Q -> M from #315 [1671270502271]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 315 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Collateral.sol exposes a permissioned withdraw function: function managerWithdrawuint256 amount external override onlyRoleMANAGERWITHDRAWROLE nonReentrant if...

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...

owner can withdraw the NFT at any time if they wait with starting the draw until after recoverTimelock

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description When creating a random draw the owner specifices a recoverTimelock which is a last resort option to recover the raffled NFT if the draw fails. There are some validations that this is between a week and a year in the future but there's no guarantee...

Functions of Trading contract can be reentered by Position.sol#mint

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Both the contracts of Position and Trading may not work correctly. Proof of Concept The Position.solmint calls safeMint will trigger a checkOnERC721Received callback, which can be used to reenter. Crackers can use this vulnerability to attack the protoco...

Might lose manager forever

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If project sets new manager with a typo, might lose manager forever Proof of Concept function setManager address manager public onlyOwner manager = manager; https://twitter.com/realgmhacker/status/1603362870699429889?s=20&t=vm4wY1ITefLhCW8BDa0oig...