Unsafe use of approve() with IERC20

Lines of code 321, 215, 184, 450, 761, 217, 157, 234, 339, 386https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/t...

Calls to get_virtual_price() are vulnerable to read-only reentrancy

Lines of code 117 Vulnerability details getvirtualprice was originally considered to be a manipulation-resistant price - suitable as a price oracle, but it was later found to be vulnerable to a read-only reentrancy attack, where the Curve contract could be put into a partially-modified state, and...

addRewardToken() does note remove old entries before adding new ones

Lines of code 455, 280, 378, 411 Vulnerability details Each time addRewardToken is called, new entries are added to the array, but doing so does not remove any old entries. By calling the function multiple times, an attacker can can increase their voting power indefinitely, without having to...

Use of transferFrom() rather than safeTransferFrom() for NFTs in will lead to the loss of NFTs

Lines of code 230, 342, 514, 536 Vulnerability details The EIP-721 standard says the following about transferFrom: /// @notice Transfer ownership of an NFT -- THE CALLER IS RESPONSIBLE /// TO CONFIRM THAT to IS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING NFTS OR ELSE /// THEY MAY BE PERMANENTLY LOST /// @dev Throws...

Small positions are allowed in the system that are not profitable for liquidators

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept When someone borrows, then he can borrow any assets amount that he would like. In the end function will check that position is healthy, which means that user has enough collateral amount to cover borrowed amount. The problem is that this functi...

addRewardToken() does note remove old entries before adding new ones

Lines of code 455, 280, 378, 411 Vulnerability details Each time addRewardToken is called, new entries are added to the array, but doing so does not remove any old entries. By calling the function multiple times, an attacker can can increase their voting power indefinitely, without having to...

Calls to get_virtual_price() are vulnerable to read-only reentrancy

Lines of code 117 Vulnerability details getvirtualprice was originally considered to be a manipulation-resistant price - suitable as a price oracle, but it was later found to be vulnerable to a read-only reentrancy attack, where the Curve contract could be put into a partially-modified state, and...

The owner is a single point of failure and a centralization risk

Lines of code 56, 109, 127, 172, 219, 250, 115, 131, 154, 116, 131https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapiocaz-audit/blob/bcf61f79464cfdc0484aa272f9f6e28d...

Unchecked return value of low-level call()/delegatecall()

Lines of code 120, 141, 411, 184, 160, 189, 152, 444, 625, 638https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapioca-bar-audit/blob/2286f80f928f41c8bc189d0657d74ba83286c668/contract...

Unsafe use of transfer()/transferFrom() with IERC20

Lines of code 377, 509, 491, 530, 42, 50 Vulnerability details Some tokens do not implement the ERC20 standard properly but are still accepted by most code that accepts ERC20 tokens. For example Tether USDT's transfer and transferFrom functions on L1 do not return booleans as the specification...

Underflow could happened when calculating Uniswap V3 position's fee growth and can cause operations to revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When operations need to calculate Uniswap V3 position's fee growth, it used similar function implemented by uniswap v3. However, according to this known issue : Uniswap/v3-core573. The contract is implicitly relies on underflow/overflow when calculating...

Providing LP outside of active range is prone to DoS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When LP provide uniswap V3 position using ParticlePositionManager that have range outside of active price, it can be DoSed by opening position of all the provided liquidity. Proof of Concept When LPs provide a Uniswap V3 position that is currently outsid...

Should count pending harvest reward and already harvested reward as collateral credit if the collateral is WLP

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Should count pending harvest reward and already harvested reward as collateral credit if the collateral is WLP Proof of Concept User can use WLP as collateral, even use WLP purely as collateral to borrow fund from lending pool the collateral worth of WLP...

Liquidation is not possible if trader blacklisted from blacklistable ERC20 token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a trader is blacklisted from a blacklistable ERC20 token while has an open position, it may not be possible to liquidate the position. Proof of Concept When liquidate position, it will eventually calculate the amount of token that need to be send to...

testing discord integration

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details TEST --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

TEST HIGH

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details TEST --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

TEST MED

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details TEST --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

testing discord integration

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details TEST --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

testing discord integration

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details TEST --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

TEST MED

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details TEST --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

TEST

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details TEST --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Reentrancy in NextGenMinterContract.mint() allows exceeding max allowance and concurrent use of NFTs in NextGenMinterContract.burnToMint()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact 1. Bypassing maxAllowance in NextGenMinterContract.mint: Enables minting more NFTs than permitted. 2. Exploiting reentrancy in NextGenMinterContract.burnToMint: Allows acquiring both burnable and mintable NFTs at the same time. Proof of Concept The 1st...

Contracts are vulnerable to fee-on-transfer accounting-related issues

Lines of code 359, 448, 509, 530, 42, 797, 162 Vulnerability details The functions below transfer funds from the caller to the receiver via transferFrom, but do not ensure that the actual number of tokens received is the same as the input amount to the transfer. If the token is a fee-on-transfer...

Unsafe usage of msg.value in a loop

Lines of code 140 Vulnerability details The value of msg.value in a transaction's call never gets updated, even if the called contract ends up sending some or all of the Eth to another contract. This means that using msg.value in a for- or while-loop, without extra accounting logic, will either...

Return values of approve() not checked

Lines of code 321, 215, 184, 450, 761, 217, 157, 234, 339, 386https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/t...

Fee-on-transfer/rebasing tokens will have problems when swapping

Lines of code 110 Vulnerability details Uniswap v3 does not support rebasing or fee-on-transfer tokens so using these tokens with it will result funds getting stuck. With fee-on-transfer tokens, if the balance isn't checked, the wrong amount may be transferred out. With rebasing tokens, the...

_safeMint() should be used rather than _mint() wherever possible

Lines of code 139, 178, 204 Vulnerability details mint is discouraged in favor of safeMint which ensures that the recipient is either an EOA or implements IERC721Receiver. Both OpenZeppelin and solmate have versions of this function. In the cases below, mint does not call...

addRewardToken() does note remove old entries before adding new ones

Lines of code 455, 280, 378, 411 Vulnerability details Each time addRewardToken is called, new entries are added to the array, but doing so does not remove any old entries. By calling the function multiple times, an attacker can can increase their voting power indefinitely, without having to...

addRewardToken() does note remove old entries before adding new ones

Lines of code 455, 280, 378, 411 Vulnerability details Each time addRewardToken is called, new entries are added to the array, but doing so does not remove any old entries. By calling the function multiple times, an attacker can can increase their voting power indefinitely, without having to...

Use of transferFrom() rather than safeTransferFrom() for NFTs in will lead to the loss of NFTs

Lines of code 230, 342, 514, 536 Vulnerability details The EIP-721 standard says the following about transferFrom: /// @notice Transfer ownership of an NFT -- THE CALLER IS RESPONSIBLE /// TO CONFIRM THAT to IS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING NFTS OR ELSE /// THEY MAY BE PERMANENTLY LOST /// @dev Throws...

Unsafe use of transfer()/transferFrom() with IERC20

Lines of code 377, 509, 491, 530, 42, 50 Vulnerability details Some tokens do not implement the ERC20 standard properly but are still accepted by most code that accepts ERC20 tokens. For example Tether USDT's transfer and transferFrom functions on L1 do not return booleans as the specification...

latestAnswer() may return stale values

Lines of code 121, 122, 123, 124, 51 Vulnerability details latestAnswer only returns the latest answer or zero, and thus there is no way to tell whether the value is stale or not. Use latestRoundData instead, and check whether the latest timestamp is within your protocol's limits. File:...

Array is push()ed but not pop()ed, and is iterated over

Lines of code 96, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/ta...

Calls to get_virtual_price() are vulnerable to read-only reentrancy

Lines of code 117 Vulnerability details getvirtualprice was originally considered to be a manipulation-resistant price - suitable as a price oracle, but it was later found to be vulnerable to a read-only reentrancy attack, where the Curve contract could be put into a partially-modified state, and...

addRewardToken() does note remove old entries before adding new ones

Lines of code 455, 280, 378, 411 Vulnerability details Each time addRewardToken is called, new entries are added to the array, but doing so does not remove any old entries. By calling the function multiple times, an attacker can can increase their voting power indefinitely, without having to...

Calls to get_virtual_price() are vulnerable to read-only reentrancy

Lines of code 117 Vulnerability details getvirtualprice was originally considered to be a manipulation-resistant price - suitable as a price oracle, but it was later found to be vulnerable to a read-only reentrancy attack, where the Curve contract could be put into a partially-modified state, and...

Unsafe use of approve() with IERC20

Lines of code 321, 215, 184, 450, 761, 217, 157, 234, 339, 386https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/t...

Use of transferFrom() rather than safeTransferFrom() for NFTs in will lead to the loss of NFTs

Lines of code 230, 342, 514, 536 Vulnerability details The EIP-721 standard says the following about transferFrom: /// @notice Transfer ownership of an NFT -- THE CALLER IS RESPONSIBLE /// TO CONFIRM THAT to IS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING NFTS OR ELSE /// THEY MAY BE PERMANENTLY LOST /// @dev Throws...

The owner is a single point of failure and a centralization risk

Lines of code 56, 109, 127, 172, 219, 250, 115, 131, 154, 116, 131https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapiocaz-audit/blob/bcf61f79464cfdc0484aa272f9f6e28d...

Using block.timestamp as the deadline/expiry invites MEV

Lines of code 307 Vulnerability details Passing block.timestamp as the expiry/deadline of an operation does not mean "require immediate execution" - it means "whatever block this transaction appears in, I'm comfortable with that block's timestamp". Providing this value means that a malicious mine...

Some tokens may revert when zero value transfers are made

Lines of code 356, 371, 145, 272, 252, 116, 445, 374, 506, 488https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tap-token-audit/blob/59749be5bc2286f0bdbf59d7ddc258ddafd49a9f/contracts/options/TapiocaOptionBroker...

Unchecked return value of low-level call()/delegatecall()

Lines of code 120, 141, 411, 184, 160, 189, 152, 444, 625, 638https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapioca-bar-audit/blob/2286f80f928f41c8bc189d0657d74ba83286c668/contract...

Unchecked return value of low-level call()/delegatecall()

Lines of code 120, 141, 411, 184, 160, 189, 152, 444, 625, 638https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapioca-bar-audit/blob/2286f80f928f41c8bc189d0657d74ba83286c668/contract...

The owner is a single point of failure and a centralization risk

Lines of code 56, 109, 127, 172, 219, 250, 115, 131, 154, 116, 131https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapiocaz-audit/blob/bcf61f79464cfdc0484aa272f9f6e28d...

Calls to get_virtual_price() are vulnerable to read-only reentrancy

Lines of code 117 Vulnerability details getvirtualprice was originally considered to be a manipulation-resistant price - suitable as a price oracle, but it was later found to be vulnerable to a read-only reentrancy attack, where the Curve contract could be put into a partially-modified state, and...

Excess funds sent via msg.value not refunded

Lines of code 201 Vulnerability details The code below allows the caller to provide Ether, but does not refund the amount in excess of what's required, leaving funds stranded in the contract. The condition should be changed to check for equality, or the code should refund the excess. File:...

Unsafe use of approve() with IERC20

Lines of code 321, 215, 184, 450, 761, 217, 157, 234, 339, 386https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/t...

Interface improperly implemented

Lines of code 34, 34, 34, 34, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapioca-yieldbox-strategies-audi...

Using block.timestamp as the deadline/expiry invites MEV

Lines of code 307 Vulnerability details Passing block.timestamp as the expiry/deadline of an operation does not mean "require immediate execution" - it means "whatever block this transaction appears in, I'm comfortable with that block's timestamp". Providing this value means that a malicious mine...

Unsafe use of transfer()/transferFrom() with IERC20

Lines of code 377, 509, 491, 530, 42, 50 Vulnerability details Some tokens do not implement the ERC20 standard properly but are still accepted by most code that accepts ERC20 tokens. For example Tether USDT's transfer and transferFrom functions on L1 do not return booleans as the specification...