unstake() function: The unstake function permits the unstaking of multiple position NFTs from the same liquidity pool (LP) by the same lender. This opens the possibility for a lender to claim more Ajna token rewards than they are entitled to by staking and unstaking multiple NFTs associated with the same LP.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The absence of a mechanism to prevent a lender from unstaking multiple NFTs for the same liquidity pool LP could potentially lead to the exploitation of the Ajna token reward system. A lender can mint, stake, and unstake multiple NFTs for the same LP fro...

Lack of Access Control in GrantFund Smart Contract's fundTreasury Function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The fundTreasury function in the GrantFund.sol contract allows anyone to add funds to the contract's treasury without any access control, which can lead to unauthorized access to the contract's funds. The problem with this function is that it doesn't hav...

Users may lose rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In RewardsManager.sol we have claimRewards function: function claimRewards uint256 tokenId, uint256 epochToClaim external override StakeInfo storage stakeInfo = stakestokenId; if msg.sender != stakeInfo.owner revert...

Standard voting favors proposals which ask for lower GBC

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Proposals which ask for higher % of the GBC have a serious disadvantage. Proof of Concept For simplicity, let's say there are only 3 projects in the screening stage. Project A asks for 90% GBC and projects B and C ask for 40% GBC each. Therefore, project...

Extraordinary proposal can become stuck

Lines of code Vulnerability details Since standard and extraordinary proposals use the same treasury funds accounting variables and extraordinary voting period is long enough 1 month, it is possible that extraordinary proposal that was valid and gained enough votes will end up frozen: it might no...

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

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Impact Without measuring the balance before and after the transfer, there's no way to ensure that enough tokens were transferred, in the cases where the token has a fee-on-transfer mechanic. If there are latent funds in the contract,...

Inconsistence input of depositTime might lead to unexpected result

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Inconsistency by relying on depositTime at positions hashmap instead of reading the value from lenderInfo Proof of Concept The depositTime is being read from fromPosition.depositTime at moveLiquidity function and not from lenderInfo L268 and L285...

Position NFT can be spammed with insignificant positions by anyone until rewards DoS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The PositionManager.memorializePositionsparams method can be called by anyone per design, see 3rd party test cases and allows insignificantly small any value 0 positions to be attached to anyone else's positions NFT, see PoC. As a result, the...

Unchecked increment in calculateRewards function of RewardsManager.sol.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the calculateRewards function, there is an unchecked increment in the for loop, in the code it can allow an attacker to cause an integer overflow in the calculateRewards function by manipulating the loop variable, resulting in incorrect rewards...

mint() function: an attacker can mint multiple position NFTs for one or more legit Ajna users who have LP in Ajna pools. This should not be possible.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The current implementation of the mint function does not ensure that only the owner of a liquidity pool LP deposit can mint position NFTs. As a result, an attacker can mint multiple position NFTs on behalf of legitimate Ajna users who have LP in Ajna...

Incorrect calculation of the remaining updatedRewards leads to possible underflow error

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact RewardsManage.sol keeps track of the total number of rewards collected per epoch for all pools: File: 2023-05-ajna\ajna-core\src\RewardsManager.sol 73: /// @dev epoch = rewards claimed mapping. 74: mappinguint256 = uint256 public override rewardsClaimed;...

NOT CONFIRMED

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details NOT CONFIRMED Assessed type Decimal --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Missing Proposal Validations in Funding Contract.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Funding.sol contract's validateCallDatas function validates the targets, values, and calldatas parameters for a proposal but does not check if the proposal is valid based on the current state of the contract. For example, it does not check if the...

Division by Zero Vulnerability in _calculateNewRewards function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The calculateNewRewards function in the smart contract performs a division operation with totalInterestEarnedInPeriod, which could be zero, but there is a problem that can result in a division-by-zero error, causing the smart contract to behave...

PositionManager's moveLiquidity can freeze funds by removing destination index even when the move was partial

Lines of code Vulnerability details positionIndex.removeparams.fromIndexremoves the PositionManager entry even when it is only partial removal as a result of IPoolparams.pool.moveQuoteToken... call. I.e. it is correct to do fromPosition.lps -= vars.lpbAmountFrom, but the resulting amount might no...

Risk of Gas Limit Exceedance During Proposal Sorting

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The array of up to 10 proposals using the insertion sort algorithm in insertionSortProposalsByVotes function in the StandardFunding.sol contract but, if the number of proposals exceeds 10, the sorting process may cause the function to exceed the block ga...

Use of msg.sender in mayInteract Modifier

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The use of msg.sender in the mayInteract modifier in the contract. I have identified a potential vulnerability in the use of msg.sender. In this case, the vulnerability is caused by using msg.sender to authorize interactions with the contract. Since...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #298 [1683709930306]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 298 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-01 Valid hex string is not decoded correctly by hexStringToBytes32 and reads memory out-of-boundary Links Impact Valid hexadecimal strings are not decoded correctly. Decoding reads out-of-bounds memory returning...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #49 [1683711080406]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 49 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: QA10. readKeyValue fails to enforce the constraint offset+len Mitigation: make sure offset+len input.length revert outOfBoundAccess; uint256 separator = input.findoffset, len, "="; if separator == typeuint256.max retu...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #279 [1683710498041]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 279 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-06 EllipticCurve.validateSignature has wrong and needless code blocks if P2 == 0 return false; uint256 Px = inverseModP2, p; Px = mulmodP0, mulmodPx, Px, p, p; Px = p0 inverseP2^2 is not correct here. Fortunately, ...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #298 [1683710120837]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 298 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03 Redundant and dangerous len parameter in readKeyValue Links Impact If the len is not set to input.length minus the offset, there may be unpredictable results due how the algorithm works. Proof of Concept Let's...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #49 [1683711003164]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 49 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: QA9. hexStringToBytes32 fails to check that range idx, lastIdx is within 32 bytes range and thus the returned r will fit into bytes32. Mitigation: Introduce the check: function hexStringToBytes32 bytes memory str,...

high risk issue

Lines of code Vulnerability details Submitting a high risk issue! Assessed type ERC4626 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #99 [1683646958313]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 99 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: 03 ALLOWING ShortCollateral.refresh FUNCTION TO BE CALLABLE BY ANYONE CAN BE DANGEROUS --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Test Submission

Lines of code Vulnerability details Test issue content Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute...

Mitigation of M-08: Issue not mitigated

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-08: Issue not mitigated Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings685 Comments First, there is a clear error in the associated description of mitigation: "Use Chainlink to get rETH". Using Chainlink to obtain the...

Mitigation of M-05: Issue not mitigated, mitigation errors

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-05: Issue not mitigated, mitigation errors Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings812 Comments The issue describes missing checks associated with staking requirements for the WstEth and Reth derivative. The...

Mitigation Confirmed for Mitigation of M-10: Issue mitigated

Mitigated issue M-10: Stuck ether when use function stake with empty derivativesderivativeCount = 0 The issue was that stake will accept payment but not issue safETH when derivativeCount == 0 or when all weightsi == 0. Mitigation review The proposed mitigation simply adds a requirederivativeCount...

Mitigation of M-08: Issue NOT mitigated

Mitigated issue M-08: Possible DoS on unstake The issue is that a potential time-lock in Rocket Pool may cause RocketTokenRETHInterfacerethAddress.burnamount to revert, which prevents frequent withdrawals and unstakes. Mitigation review Reth.withdraw still calls...

Mitigation Confirmed for M-02

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-02: Issue not mitigated Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings1049 Comment Issue M-02 describes an edge case in which the SfrxEth derivative may revert under an scenario where the calculation of the redeem amoun...

Mitigation of M-10: Issue not mitigated

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-10: Issue not mitigated Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings363 Comments Even though the protocol team applied the warden's recommendation in M-10, the feature to enable/disable derivatives added as a mitigati...

Reappearance of M-02 in SafEth.unstake()

Reappearance of M-02 in SafEth.unstake Description The changes in SafEth.unstake has introduced a new issue parallel to the one present in SfrxEth.withdraw which was reported in M-02: sFrxEth may revert on redeeming non-zero amount, i.e. SafEth.unstake may revert as a consequence of a valid call ...

Reappearance of M-02 in WstEth.withdraw()

Reappearance of M-02 in WstEth.withdraw Description The changes in WstEth.withdraw has introduced a new issue exactly parallel to the one present in SfrxEth.withdraw which was reported in M-02: sFrxEth may revert on redeeming non-zero amount, i.e. WstEth.withdrawamount may revert when amount 0. F...

Chainlink price feed responses are not validated

NEW ISSUE - MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED NEW ISSUE - MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED adriro-NEW-H-02 Chainlink price feed responses are not validated Link to changesets: Impact The protocol team introduced Chainlink price feeds for the Reth and WstEth derivatives in order to mitigate price manipulatio...

Mitigation of M-01: Issue NOT fully mitigated

Mitigated issue M-01: Division before multiplication truncate minOut and incurs heavy precision loss and result in insufficient slippage protection The issue was a loss of precision of three different kinds. 1 a/bc = ac/b in the calculation of mintAmount in SafEth.stake. Mitigation review The...

Mitigation of M-09: Issue not mitigated

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-09: Issue not mitigated Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings673 Even though the contest repository revision 431a4b751fb7e184b847a41509b97e4d67971d2f doesn't mention a changeset for M-09, I assume the...

Protocol assumes a 1:1 peg of frxETH to ETH

NEW ISSUE - MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED NEW ISSUE - MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED adriro-NEW-H-01 Protocol assumes a 1:1 peg of frxETH to ETH Link to changeset: Impact The ethPerDerivative function in the SfrxEth now assumes a peg of frxETH to ETH, and reverts if the price difference queried throug...

Mitigation Confirmed for NEW

Note: Issue has not actually been resolved but for some reason I can't get my issues to submit without "Mitigation confirmed no new vulnerabilities detected" checked so I am doing this as a work around Severity Medium Lines of code Impact Contract still assumes 1:1 peg for stETH in WstETHwithdraw...

Mitigation Confirmed for Mitigation of M-05: See comments

Mitigated issue M-05: Missing derivative limit and deposit availability checks will revert the whole stake function The issue was that stake calls deposit on each derivative without considering certain conditions under which some deposit might revert. There is an overlap between this issue and...

Mitigation Confirmed for H-06

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of H-06: Issue not mitigated Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings588 Comments Issue H-06 describes the potential problems of assuming a peg of stETH to ETH. The sponsor proposed a mitigation to fetch the price of...

Mitigation Confirmed for NEW

H-02, H-05, H-06, H-08 mitigation error: No sanity check on Chainlink price feed Description and recommendation The mitigation of issues H-02, H-05, H06 and H-08 have introduced a Chainlink price feed. In all of those instances there are no sanity checks on the Chainlink return data, especially...

Mitigation of M-04: Mitigation error

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-04: Mitigation error Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings932 Comments Even though the original issue is mitigated, as the exchange through Uniswap V3 has been completely removed in favor of using...

Hard slippage in Reth.withdraw()

Hard slippage in Reth.withdraw Description A hard slippage has been introduced in Reth.withdraw. This is a new occurrence of part of M-12 not the main report, but e.g. this duplicate, namely that the slippage can be changed only by the owner, which under volatile market conditions or a depegging...

Rounding loss in and with approxPrice()

Rounding loss in and with approxPrice Description SafEth.approxPrice contains a rounding loss of the form a/k + b/k = ac/b. We would...

Mitigation Confirmed for M-01

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-01: Issue not mitigated Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings1078 Comments While the "division before multiplication" issues described in M-01 have been mitigated in the proposed changeset, there are other case...

Mitigation of M-02: Issue perhaps NOT sufficiently mitigated

Mitigation of M-02: Issue perhaps NOT sufficiently mitigated Mitigated issue M-02: sFrxEth may revert on redeeming non-zero amount The issue was that SfrxEth.withdrawamount may revert when called in unstake, blocking unstaking, if amount is low most realistically if amount == 1. Mitigation review...

Mitigation of M-12: Issue NOT mitigated

Mitigated issue M-12: No slippage protection on stake in SafEth.sol There were issues with either a lack of slippage protection or a hard set slippage. Slippage protection was missing in deposit for Reth.deposit only if depositing in the Rocket Pool and in Reth.withdraw, as well as in stake becau...

Mitigation Confirmed for H-06

Fix looks good. Root issue was assume 1:1 peg for stETH. This has been fixed by getting true price of stETH from chainlink oracle. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Mitigation of M-07: Issue not mitigated

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-07: Issue not mitigated Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings765 Comments While the principal issue for M-07 described a de-peg scenario, which eventually was interpreted as a "black swan" event, I do think the...

Mitigation of M-11: Issue NOT mitigated

Mitigated issue M-11: Residual ETH unreachable and unuitilized in SafEth.sol The issue was that the rounding losses from partitioning msg.value in stake and rebalanceToWeights was left irretrievably in the contract. Mitigation review Previously rebalanceToWeights withdrew all staked funds and...