Revoking claim should regard accrued but not claimed tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact revokeClaim should send the user what is already vested at this moment before deactivating the claim. e.g. imagine a situation when a user has never claimed the tokens and has 90% already vested but suddenly the admin decides to revoke it and the user is...

Employee can be unable to withdraw claimable amount that she or he deserves after admin revokes her or his claim

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When an employee has an active claim, this employee can call the following withdraw function to withdraw the claimable amount that she or he is entitled to, which would increase her or his claim's amountWithdrawn. Because the employee is free to call...

Users may not withdraw their tokens.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact VTVLVesting's withdraw function has a logic error that impacts the distribution. According to the NATSPEC comment, the users can withdraw their tokens which are fully claimable. However, as per the function's logic users can withdraw their tokens until a...

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 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...

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...

First depositor can break share minting

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users will be unable to deposit their wished amount of tokens. Proof of Concept Similar to this ToB yearn audit, an attacker can mint a very small amount of shares and transfer a large amount of WETH to the contract, inflating the share price and making ...

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...

[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...

Eth can be stucked in contract when NFT was gifted to party (AuctionCrowdfund.sol)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact We can call function finalize, which will claim the NFT if we won. After claiming the NFT, function will check if contract is the owner of NFT or not. if lastBid == 0 // The NFT was gifted to us. Everyone who contributed wins. lastBid = totalContribution...

VaultFactory.sol : changeTreasury, changeTimewindow, changeController - all these function will not update the vault parameters as they are read from memory.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reading the vault in memory and updating its parameters will not update its values permanently. Proof of Concept Tools Used Manual code review. Recommended Mitigation Steps Read vault in storage instead of memory Update in following lines of codes. --- T...

havent specify the solidity compiler version, 8.15 and older version may lead to a mis encoded struct parameter

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the structure: struct ExecuteProposalParams uint256 proposalId; bytes proposalData; bytes progressData; bytes extraData; uint256 flags; IERC721 preciousTokens; uint256 preciousTokenIds; there are some unknown length elementbytes, in 8.15 and older...

Unsafe ERC721 operations

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is recommended to use safeTransfer and safeTransferFrom when transferring ERC721 and ERC20 token Tools Used Manual audit Recommended Mitigation Steps Use the safeTransfer and safeTransferFrom functions to transfer ERC721 and ERC20 tokens --- The text...

Unbounded proposal calls array length could cause DoS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It's possible to render the governance and execution contract inoperable for a period of time and effectively kill some proposals due to execution failure, which will break the governance routine and function. This could be a mistake or on purpose. Proof...

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...

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...

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...

Lack of check if token is a contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact solmate won't check if the token is a contract or not. It's possible for an attacker to the create a vault for a non existing token with a deterministic address. The problem occurs if the token gets deployed later, and another user tries to use this toke...

Problems with PegOracle

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are at least a few problems with the PegOracle. I am grouping them into one submission because some of them are not that significant but the last one I believe deserves a higher severity. 1. Function latestRoundData queries getOracle2Price but...

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...

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...

[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...

timewindow can be changed unexpectedly that blocks users from calling deposit function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As shown by the following epochHasNotStarted modifier, which is used by the deposit function below, users can only deposit when block.timestamp modifier epochHa...

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...

Anyone can initialize contracts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Party.initialize , CollectionBuyCrowdfund.initialize , BuyCrowdfund.initialize , AuctionCrowdfund.initialize are functions called with the onlyConstructor modifier . This allows these functions to only be called by a constructor function in any contract...

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...

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...

Previously nominated delegate can reset the delegation

Lines of code Vulnerability details burn allows for previously recorded delegate to set himself to be contributor's delegate even if another one was already chosen. This can be quite material as owner choice for the whole voting power is being reset this way to favor the old delegate. Proof of...

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 =...

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...

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...

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...

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...

[NAZ-H1] 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. Proof of Concept In SemiFungibleVault.solL143, the allocation of shares is...

recoverERC20() in StakingRewards shouldn't allow transfer of rewardToken because it belongs to users who stacked their funds and owner shouldn't be able to immediately withdraw those users funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact rewardToken balance in StakingRewards contract is belongs to staking users and owner shouldn't be able to withdraw all balance of rewardToken immediately, because this can cause users to lose their funds if owner perform this action by intention or by...

[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...

PegOracle reported fraction price is constructed to favor the depeg

Lines of code Vulnerability details Depeg event is defined as linked asset price being below the strike price in the terms of the underlying asset. However, the PegOracle aimed to report the fraction of the pegged asset to the underlying always reports the number below 1, no matter how prices are...

Users can lose funds because It's possible to call withdraw() in Vault without call to endEpoch() by Controller.triggerEndEpoch(),

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact users shouldn't be allowed to withdraw their funds before epoch settling down, and code should check that endEpoch has been called before allowing withdraw for that epoch. but right now withdraw only checks that epoch has been ended and this would happen...

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...

splitRecipient resulting voting power tend to be overstated

Lines of code Vulnerability details When burn computes the contributor's share via getFinalContribution and contributor = splitRecipient it transfers the whole share to the splitRecipient in advance, even when not all the voting power were allocated. I.e. some contributors might not burn and the...

Using transferfrom on ERC721 tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the function createParty of contract Crowdfund.sol, when transferring the acquired NFTs to the new party, the transferFrom function is called instead of safeTransferFrom. If the addressparty is a contract address that doesn't support ERC721 tokens , t...

If noone deposit in one Vault, assets deposited to the other Vault will be locked.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In each Vault epoch, idFinalTVL and idClaimTVL values is only set when someone call triggerDepeg or triggerEndEpoch from Controller. In case of depeg, we will swap assets of hedge and risk Vault. But if one Vault has noone deposited, idFinalTVL will be...

[NAZ-M1] No Storage Gap for Upgradeable Contract Might Lead to Storage Slot Collision

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact For upgradeable contracts, there must be storage gap to "allow developers to freely add new state variables in the future without compromising the storage compatibility with existing deployments" quote OpenZeppelin. Otherwise it may be very difficult to...

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...

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...

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...

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:...

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...

Admin can prevent deposits by manipulating timewindow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol is open to an administrator's maliciousness. Proof of Concept As we can see in this line, the contracts in this project has some sanity checks even for admin only calls. However, the administrator is free to change a hedge/risk pair timewind...