Outdated Claims can be created which will potentially inflate the vested amounts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Overview In creating claims, the VTVLVesting contract uses various time related variables including startTimestamp and endTimestamp which determines when the linear vesting starts and ends consecutively. This is visible in the createClaim , createClaimsBatch an...

Mistakenly use of arithmetic operation can lead to loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Mistakenly use of arithmetic operation can lead to loss Description Calculating the values can somewhat correct to what you need but this is a great mistake of calculation which should be overcomed .Now why should this be overcomed? Since in Solidity, the order...

beforeWithdraw() call syncRewards() results in incorrect nextRewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact beforeWithdraw call syncRewards cause the number of "nextRewards" to be incorrect . if a large amount is withdraw at the end of the cycle, then the next cycle reward will incorrectly increase by the corresponding amount Proof of Concept when call...

Upgraded Q -> M from 143 [1663859521800]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 143 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: 2.ETHRegistrarController.register can pass any "resolver" and "data" parameters , then ETHRegistrarController do "functionCall " It is possible to pass malicious parameters example : resolver =...

Upgraded Q -> M from 496 [1663882181323]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 496 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from 238 [1663858577471]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 238 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: 2. call should be used instead of transfer on an address payable Sometimes this kind of issue is considered as Medium risk. The use of the deprecated transfer function for an address will inevitably make the...

multiply users can contribution with one Token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users, don't have a Token for contribution but they can bypass this check easy Proof of Concept If the Crowdfund is private by using TokenGateKeeper.sol The contributor can contribution and then send the NFT or ERC20 to another user address. So two users...

Return value of transferFrom() does not check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Return value of transferFrom inside deposit function does not checked: function deposituint256 id, uint256 assets, address receiver public override marketExistsid epochHasNotStartedid nonReentrant returns uint256 shares // Check for rounding error since ...

Non-contributor can force contributors to buy the NFT when the contributors no longer want to

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact For a hyped NFT that is valuable to some users, these users can become contributors to contribute for this NFT through using the BuyCrowdfund contract. Yet, during the crowdfunding phase, the NFT's value drops sharply in which its price drops to 0. At th...

Some users won't be able to burn their crowdfund token to get their voting power

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User which is a contract who doesn't have a receive function can't burn his token to get the governance power, because ethOwed ether are transferred to him. This is correct even if ethOwed is 0. Tools Used Manual audit Recommended Mitigation Steps Consid...

The delegation even if you have no VotingPower

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when you buy a new VotingPower. You need to undelegated them before the next proposal Proof of Concept -When Alice sell his NFT by calling transferFrom on PartyGovernanceNFT.sol. it will be set for the delegating to the previous delegator. but he actuall...

Front-running of accept call

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description There is accept and veto functions in the PartyGovernance contract. The functions accepts the proposalId accept function also accepts snapIndex, which does not contain any information about the proposal itself. As a result, transactions of users can...

[NAZ-M2] withdraw() Allows Anyone Withdraw Someone Else's Shares

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact withdraw is meant for the owner or approved receiver to withdraw the owner's deposited assets and burn the owner's shares. It checks if msg.sender == owner OR if isApprovedForAllowner, receiver. If the owner has approved for all a receiver and someone...

ERC1155.isApprovedForAll(owner, receiver) logic means it is possible for an approved receiver to withdraw more shares than expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details In the Readme, it is mentioned a receiver can call withdraw on behalf of the shares owner we accept deposits and withdraws on behalf of other users, by using approve ERC1155 functions on withdraw, and recipient/owner params inside both deposit/withdraw function...

Missing Transfer Verification

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The ERC20 standard token implementation functions return the transaction status as a boolean. It is a good practice to check for the return status of the function call to ensure that the transaction was executed successfully. It is the developer's...

Wrong Math for latestRoundData

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Mathematical equivalent of price1 and price2 numbers in latestRoundData function is incorrect Proof of Concept The following example returns incorrect results with numbers contract Test function latestRoundDatapublic view returns uint256 uint256 price1 =...

Possible reentrancy attack on deposit function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In deposit function the shares was calculated before the asset.safeTransferFrom. One possible scenario is when the supply it's 0totalSupplyid == 0, the retrun of convertToShares it's assets, if the asset is an ERC777 a contract sender could call again th...

[NAZ-M3] Use safeTransferFrom() instead of transferFrom() for ERC721 transfers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The transferFrom method is used instead of safeTransferFrom, presumably to save gas. I however argue that this isn’t recommended because: OpenZeppelin’s documentation discourages the use of transferFrom, use safeTransferFrom whenever possible. Given that...

rewards stuck in StakingRewards because of division rounding error in notifyRewardAmount() and rewardPerToken() and updateReward()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In all functions notifyRewardAmount and rewardPerToken and updateReward there is a division which cause division rounding error and make some rewards to stuck in contract and users don't get their rewards and so users would lose funds. Proof of Concept...

FIRST DEPOSITOR CAN BREAK MINTING OF SHARES

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The attack vector and impact is the same as TOB-YEARN-003, where users may not receive shares in exchange for their deposits if the total asset amount has been manipulated through a large “donation”. In the SemiFungibleVault.sol file, the allocation of...

A majority attack can steal precious NFT from the party by crafting and chaining two proposals

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The PartyGovernance system has many defenses in place to protect against a majority holder stealing the NFT. Majority cannot exfiltrate the ETH gained from selling precious NFT via any proposal, and it's impossible to sell NFT for any asset except...

A malicious user could stuck crowdfund ETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A user could freeze funds accumulated in a crowdfund and execute a "fake sale" that would be the approval of the token. Proof of Concept A group of users create a crowdfund, they raise money to buy the most good looking Bored Ape. An attacker would buy i...

mapping deletion will not remove the full content

Lines of code Vulnerability details mapping deletion will not remove the full content Summary A deletion in a structure containing a mapping will not delete the mapping see the Solidity documentation. The remaining data may be used to compromise the contract. Proof of Concept Navigate to the...

Unchecked Transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details High Severity - Unchecked Transfer Line 167 of Vault.sol has an unchecked Transfer. Reference and recommendation from slither. Tools Used: Slither --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Use safeTransferFrom() function instead of transferFrom()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The transferFrom method is used in the contract PartyGovernanceNFT.sol, I however argue that this isn’t recommended because: OpenZeppelin’s documentation discourages the use of transferFrom, use safeTransferFrom whenever possible Given that any NFT can b...

this is a test

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant proof that illustrates the concept. Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps --- The...

Arbitrary contract call allows attacker to steal from user's wallet

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In function prepareGate , in the following line : bool s, bytes memory r = addressgateKeeper.callcreateGateCallData; A call to an arbitrary contractgateKeeper with custom calldata createGateCallData is made in prepareGate, which means the contract...

Invalid Use of BODMAS in TokenDistributor.sol and PartyGovernanceNFT.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Invalid Use of BODMAS in TokenDistributor.sol and PartyGovernanceNFT.sol In contract TokenDistributor.sol we initializing the value of uint128 fee using a mathematical way but in a wrong manner their brackets are missing which will clear out the instance of usi...

Chainlink's latestRoundData might return stale or incorrect results

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact On Controller.sol and in PegOracle.sol we are using latestRoundData, but there is no check if the return value indicates stale data. This could lead to stale prices according to the Chainlink documentation: Proof of Concept Tools Used Visual Inspection...

User fund lost because they can't withdraw() their funds before epoch startTime and they have to stuck in positions that become unprofitable even when epoch is not started

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact users deposit their funds in Vault when epoch is not started but as other users deposit funds too or price of pegged token changes users get different risk to reward and they may wants to withdraw their funds before epoch start time to get out of bad...

Proposer can double spend his votes as many times as he likes, rugging the party

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Proposals are created using PartyGovernance's proposeproposal,.. function, and voted on thereafter using acceptproposalid,…. To make sure users don't vote twice, every proposal has hasVoted mapping to keep note of votes. The number of votes counted...

Some of user funds stuck in contract because of division rounding error in beforeWithdraw()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function beforeWithdraw has been used in withdraw of Vault contract to calculates withdraw amount of users but because of division rounding error in this funds some user's funds would stuck in contract. Proof of Concept This is beforeWithdraw code:...

No control for the future Airdrop

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact You can't control the airdrop NFT on this contract PartyGovernance.sol. You can only control the preciousListHash Proof of Concept The execute is check that the precious list preciousTokenIds and preciousTokens is valid or not if...

An operator can steal an NFT after its listed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The ArbitraryCallsProposal contract prevents calls to setApprovalForAll on NFTs the Party owns. If an NFT is listed, calls to setApprovalForAll via the ArbitraryCallsProposal contract will succeed because the Party isn’t in possession of the NFT. Anyone...

Vault does not verify that tokens were transferred successfully.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If for some reason the ERC20 transfer is temporarily failing, the user could call deposit for free or if calling withdraw the user would totally lose his allocation and funds. All the state variables would already have been updated at this stage, so he...

Early contributor can always become majority of crowdfund leading to rugging risks.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Voting power is distributed to crowdfund contributors according to the amount contributed divided by NFT purchase price. Attacker can call the buy function of BuyCrowdfund / CollectionBuyCrowdfund, and use only the first X amount of contribution fro...

Early contributor can always become majority of crowdfund leading to rugging risks.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Voting power is distributed to crowdfund contributors according to the amount contributed divided by NFT purchase price. Attacker can call the buy function of BuyCrowdfund / CollectionBuyCrowdfund, and use only the first X amount of contribution fro...

Tokens available to the TokenDistributor are not safe

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Any funds available to the TokenDistributor contract can be stolen. Via creating new distributions with a Party contract controlled by a hacker. When funds are in the TokenDistributor contract, for instance, transferred via the PartyGovernace.distribute...

[NAZ-H2] withdraw() does not update allowances

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact withdraw is meant for the owner or approved receiver to withdraw the owner's deposited assets and burn the owner's shares. Since it does this for all of the owner's shares, the approved receiver should not be approved for all anymore after burning. Proof...

Attacker can force AuctionCrowdfunds to bid their entire contribution up to maxBid

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description AuctionCrowdfund's bid allows any user to compete on an auction on the party's behalf. The code in bid forbids placing a bid if party is already winning the auction: if market.getCurrentHighestBidderauctionId == addressthis revert...

ERC20.sol is susceptible to classic ERC20 approve functionality front-running exploit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of concept The problem is perfectly described here The tldr; is that if you approved a person to spend 100 tokens and then you want to decrease his allowance to 50, if he spends his 100 tokens allowance before you set his allowance to 50 he will be able t...

Missing Check When Attempting to Check if the List of Precious Tokens are Correct

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There exists an issue where a missing check to ensure that the preciousTokens and preciousToksnIds list is the same length on line 1102 of the PartyGovernance.sol contract. This may lead to an inaccurate hash when attempting to run the execute function...

Attackers can mislead users to think they delegated their voting power to them

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The delegation of the voting power in the Crowdfund contract can be changed even after the party is created. If a user changes this delegation, it won't change the actual delegation, which can help attackers to mislead users into thinking they delegated...

Rounding errors can lead to wrong voting power

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The calculation of voting power in Crowdfund.getFinalContribution can lead to loss of voting power due to rounding errors. Tools Used Manual audit --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

[H3] Deposit ETH is not working as expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Deposit ETH deposit to msg.sender but not to receiver as stated in docs Proof of Concept Function depositETH at Vault.sol is not working as described in docs. @param receiver address of the receiver of the shares provided by this function, that represent...

Ambiguous situation exists for calling triggerDepeg and triggerEndEpoch functions when block.timestamp is set to epochEnd

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As shown by the following isDisaster modifier, which is used by the triggerDepeg function below, and the triggerEndEpoch function below, when block.timestamp is set to epochEnd, both of the triggerDepeg and triggerEndEpoch functions are allowed to be...

Divide before multiply may lead to loss of precision

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Solidity integer division might truncate. As a result, performing multiplication before division can sometimes avoid loss of precision. Details This would affect the dynamicQuorumVotes vote logic correct functioning Proof of Concept...

[NAZ-M3] Use safeTransfer()/safeTransferFrom() instead of transfer()/transferFrom()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is a good idea to add a require statement that checks the return value of ERC20 token transfers or to use something like OpenZeppelin’s safeTransfer/safeTransferFrom unless one is sure the given token reverts in case of a failure. Failure to do so wil...

Owner can use changeTimewindow() in VaultFactory and deny other from depositing into the Vaults (As this parameter used in epoch start Time detection). owner can use this for his/her benefits when he sees there is an good opportunity. changing this parameters should be with time-lock mechanism

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Owner can control timewindow of a Vault and epoch and by that he can control deposits of others and owner can deny other from depositing into a Vault by increasing timewindow as if he saw any profit by that. changing this type of parameters should be don...

withdrawal of staking doesnt check for epochs

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when unstaking the code doesnt check wether its the end of the epoch or not Proof of Concept Tools Used none Recommended Mitigation Steps check for end of epoch --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...