If completeRedemptions is called multiple times to redeem one epoch, the complex calculation may result in incorrect redemptions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When MANAGERADMIN calls the completeRedemptions function, it requires that both redeemers and refundees have KYC. If the redeemer loses KYC, the redeemer's address will not appear in redeemers and refundees, otherwise completeRedemptions will fail...

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,...

Values in redemptions do not match, and fees are being overcharged

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The amount of collateral to distribute collateralAmountToDist does not need to match the sum of fees actually distributed the sum of collateralAmountDue in the events of processRedemption. The real distributed amount can be smaller. However, the fees are...

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...

MANAGER_ADMIN has the right to give or take any amount of user's tokens using setPendingMintBalance.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Not sure what the use case of setPendingMintBalance should be, but it can cause admins to drain the whole balance, nullify the user's funds or break the protocol. This can be caused on purpose, accidentally or through an attacker stealing MANAGERADMIN's...

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...

Non upgradeable version being used

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Based on the context and comments in the code, the SimpleAccount.sol and SmartAccount.sol contract is designed to be deployed as an upgradeable proxy contract. However, the current implementation is using an non-upgradeable version of the Initializable...

Bypass depositFor Contract Check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Validation will pass for a contract in construction; an address where a contract will be created; an address where a contract lived, but was destroyed. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

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...

SmartAccount authorization can be bypassed using a contract signature

Lines of code Vulnerability details SmartAccount authorization can be bypassed using a contract signature The SmartAccount wallet supports contract signatures defined by EIP1271, similar to how Gnosis Safe does. Transactions to the wallet can be authorized by a contract that implements the...

Upgraded Q -> M from #187 [1673006043496]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 187 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L‑02 EthereumToArbitrumRelayer.processCalls does not check msg.sender is a contract The Arbitrum relay processCalls is intended to be called by EOA, as specified in the docs: Arbitrum requires an EOA to submit a brid...

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 #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...

Non-standard ERC20 tokens are locked in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function forwardERC20s transfers ERC20 tokens out of the contract to the owner. However, it does not properly handle non-standard ERC20 tokens such as USDT which do not return a bool when the transfer is called. The issue is that token is of type...

Grief on transfers due to vestingStart during vesting

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Past similar finding with the same severity: code-423n4/2022-05-runes-findings30 While centralization risk is acknowledged by the team & the C4udit tool: this may lead to loss of functionality grief. Proof of concept There is no requirement for the start...

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...

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...

Liquidations force users into bigger debts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User's uncovered debt increases when auction starts on their collateral token. The increased debt may be too big for a user and they might not be able to repay it, which forces them to wait for the auctioned token to be sold and accrue more debt due to t...

PaprController.removeCollateral() only takes the price of the first collateral to determine whether the NFTs can be withdrawn

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Unintended leniency of protocol will be taken advantage by users. Users can withdraw NFTs even if their debt of a particular NFT is higher than intended. Proof of Concept When a user wants to removeCollateral, he calls removeCollateral which loops each...

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...

code doesn't check that the Uniswap pool is not exist and if attacker creates the uniswap pool before hand with calculatable papr address and underlying address and exact fee amount, then the deployment transaction would fail always

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact attacker can perform DOS and prevent contract from getting deployed. the address of papr can be calculate by attacker before its deployment and the address of the underlyingUSDC and the fee is known, attacker can create uniswap pool before-hand and cause...

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...

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 #27 [1671522165760]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 27 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Dup of 45. The effect is severe enough IMO to warrant a med severity although I initially intepreted it as a spec mismatch. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

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...

Users that send funds at a price lower than the current low bid have the funds locked

Lines of code Vulnerability details If a user contributes funds after there is no more supply left, and they don't provide a price higher than the current minimum bid, they will be unable to withdraw their funds while the NFT remains unbought. Impact Ether becomes stuck until and unless the NFT i...

GroupBuy can be drained of all ETH.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description purchase in GroupBuy faciilitates the purchasing of an NFT after enough contributions were gathered. Another report titled "Attacker can steal the amount collected so far in the GroupBuy for NFT purchase" describes a high impact bug in purchase. It ...

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:...

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...

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...

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...

recoverTimelock can have a value shorter than the winner's deadline to claim

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The value of recoverTimelock is checked to be greater than a week and less than a year, but it should never be allowed to be shorter than block.timestamp + settings.drawBufferTime, which is the time given to the winner to claim the NFT. Otherwise it coul...

Distribute is open to rewards manipulation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The distribute function is prone to manipulation by the first depositor if the totalShares is low, since the result of transferFrom in distribute is not checked. This can happen if a malicious user calls createLock whereby shares = 1 then calls distribut...

Extending period in Lock contract will block user funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Extending lock will block users' funds. Contract: Lock.sol Proof of Concept Locking tokens with function lock... will update mapping mapping totalLocked for given asset with value of amount, here: totalLockedasset += amount. However, when extending lock...

Minter privilege escalation vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract owner could potentially abuse their privileges to manipulate the token supply and undermine the integrity of the token economy. Proof of Concept The 'setMinter' function in the contract allows the contract owner to set the minter status for...

Frontrunning the winnerClaimNFT is possible

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The winner in the NFT raffle may be frontrun if he has listed his NFT for sale on a marketplace, stealing his raffle NFT. Proof of Concept A new VRFNFTRandomDraw Clone contract is deployed using makeNewDraw, with some NFT collection as drawingToken and...

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...

Attackers can obtain rewards through the NFT of the flash loan winning ID

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract judges whether the user has won a prize, but only judges whether the owner of the nft with the specified ID is equal to the user's address user == IERC721EnumerableUpgradeablesettings.drawingToken.ownerOf request.currentChosenTokenId ; But i...

IERC20.transfer does not support all ERC20 token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Proof of Concept Token like USDT known for using non-standard ERC20. Missing return boolean on transfer. Contract function handleDeposit will always revert when try to transferfrom this kind of tokens. Tools Used manual review Recommended Mitigation Step...

Wrong address input in BondNFT.createLock results in wrong _owner being saved in memory

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Wrong address input in createLock results in function failure of extendLock and claim. Proof of Concept When someone calls lock in Lock.sol, the function BondNFT.createLock is called . bondNFT.createLock asset, amount, period, msg.sender;...

WithdrawHook doesn't check that userWithdrawLimitPerPeriod is less than globalWithdrawLimitPerPeriod

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact WithdrawHook doesn't check that userWithdrawLimitPerPeriod is less than globalWithdrawLimitPerPeriod. It allows to user withdraw more then globalWithdrawLimitPerPeriod per period. Proof of Concept Function WithdrawHook.hook should not allow to withdraw...

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...

Merged status is not updated and bins are not reset.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Bins are not removed while removing liquidity and this can lead to serious problems. Proof of Concept While removing liquidity, if the target bin is a merged one mergeId!=0, the protocol does further calculations regarding mergeBinBalance. // Bin.sol 126...

Incompatibility With Rebasing/Deflationary/Inflationary tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Maverick AMM does not appear to support rebasing/deflationary/inflationary tokens whose balance changes during transfers or over time. The necessary checks include at least verifying the amount of tokens transferred to contracts before and after the...

PoolAdmin can steal NFT from NTokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The executeAirdrop function allow pool admin to execute arbitrary call to arbitrary contract, including a transferFrom call to the underlying NFT contract. This can be used by the pool admin to steal NFT inside the NToken contracts. Since the rescueERC72...

Loss of ETH for NFT buyers in LPDA contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buy function of LPDA sale contract can be invoked with 0 as the input value and 0 ETH as the sent valuemsg.value = 0. The buy function automatically ends the sale when newId == sale.finalId and distributes ETH to feeReceiver and saleReceiver. Since t...

PoolApeStaking#withdrawApeCoin compares health factor to incorrect value and allows user to take out large loans that expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact BAYC, MAYC and BAKC can be leveraged past max LTV and up to the liquidation factor Proof of Concept function withdrawApeCoin address nftAsset, ApeCoinStaking.SingleNft calldata nfts external nonReentrant DataTypes.PoolStorage storage ps = poolStorage;...

Some arbitrary feeders will not be removable, even by admin.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description NFTFloorOracle receives data from different "feeders". They are added using addFeeders and removed by removeFeeder. Feeders are managed by two data structures. feeders is an array, each element in the address of the feeder. feederPositionMap maps...

ProcessedCalls Event Emission Vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The contract is vulnerable to reentrancy attacks through the ProcessedCalls event. The event is emitted with the ticketId of the newly created retryable ticket, which can be used by an attacker to reenter the contract. Impact An attacker could exploit...