Users can unwrap assets in batches and avoid paying fees to protocol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can unwrap their assets from The Ocean and evade paying fees to the protocol when the requested amount is smaller than the fee divisor. This happens due to a truncation of the result in the fee calculation. Proof of Concept This affects the...

Limited functionality due to Primitive's balance being decreased before it is called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the current implementation, the balance of a primitive is decreased burned before it is called. This requires the primitive to hold outputAmount of outputToken before a transaction, which severely restricts the functionality it can provide and has no...

Usage of _safeMint in NextGenCore@_mintProcessing allows an attacker to reenter when onERC721Received is called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can : Exceed the per address allowance in Fixed Price Sale, Exponential Descending Sale and Linear Descending Sale modes. Cause a loss for another user in Burn-to-Mint mode by accepting an offer when onERC721Received is triggered. Proof of...

Potential Gas Inefficiency due to Unnecessary abi.encode Usage

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function unnecessarily uses abi.encode to convert a uint256 to bytes32, incurring additional gas costs. This doesn't affect correctness but may lead to suboptimal gas usage. Proof of Concept By modifying the fetchInteractionId function to directly ca...

Incorrect indexing in constructor of Curve Adapters causes both contracts to assume xToken and lpToken to be the same token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Curve Adapter contracts are unusable, as the protocol won't be able to tell the difference between which token USDC/USDT or lpToken is intended on being used for the transaction. Vulnerability details In the constructors of the Curve2PoolAdapter.sol and...

Unbounded Approval

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The adapter may approve an unlimited amount of tokens to be spent by the Ocean protocol and the Curve pool, which could be risky if those contracts are compromised. Proof of Concept The adapter may approve an unlimited amount of tokens to be spent by the...

convertedAmount set to zero because of bad math arithmetic

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. The pool will be able to give an outputAmount corresponding to the rawInputAmount = 0 Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant...

doInteraction() won't mint tokens to user if interaction.specifiedAmount less than 10**12 and has certain conditions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the user calls doInteraction and executes Interaction with specifiedAmount less than 10 12 and a big difference in token decimals, the user won't get any tokens. Proof of Concept Core external functions like doInteraction will call the internal...

Handling Potential Slippage Due to Truncation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The potential slippage issue arises from the precision loss during decimal conversion in the primitiveOutputAmount function. When interacting with the Curve Tricrypto Pool, especially involving tokens with different decimal precisions, truncation can lea...

CurveTricryptAdapter::primitiveOutputAmount & Curve2PoolAdapter::primitiveOutputAmount can swap without slippage tolerance

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact While there is a “Slippage protection” implementation in the contract if uint256minimumOutputAmount outputAmount revert SLIPPAGELIMITEXCEEDED; There is no validation that minimumOutputAmount is not set to 0. This can result in lost of funds. Although Oce...

Front-Running

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Visible computed input amounts could be susceptible to front-running by malicious actors. 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...

Incorrect Decimals Conversion in Curve2PoolAdapter::primitiveOutputAmount Function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The bug in the primitiveOutputAmount function can lead to incorrect decimal conversions when calculating the rawInputAmount. The rawInputAmount is calculated using the convertDecimals function, but the decimals parameter passed to convertDecimals is...

No slippage check while removing liquidity from Curve Pool

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The hardcoded value of 0 for the minamount parameter in the removeliquidityonecoin function of the Curve pool can have significant effects on user funds. When users are removing liquidity from the curve pool, the minamount parameter represents the minimu...

Funds are lost when Curve pool is killed (paused)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability Details If self.iskilled in the curve pool contract becomes true, users will be unable to close their position because removeliquidityonecoinwill revert. Users will be unable to exit their position. if outputToken == zToken uint256 wethBalance =...

Batch Execution Failure

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A failure in one interaction could potentially cause the entire batch to fail, affecting subsequent interactions. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant proof that illustrates...

Users can fail to unstake and lose their deserved ETH because malfunctioning or untrusted derivative cannot be removed. Users can fail to unstake and lose their deserved ETH because malfunctioning or untrusted derivative cannot be removed.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Potest egreditur posses torrens fugamque ignavis Ubi spectemur patent prominet tenebat ait est Lorem markdownum vitam, unus cum quaeque bellique portante et siccis intremuere nondum pascere vidit. In mihi cara terra, sui regni meritasque nescia, litora vocatum...

Some functions that call Exchange.getMarkPrice function do not check if Exchange.getMarkPrice function's returned markPrice is 0

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Impact The following Exchange.getMarkPrice function uses pool.baseAssetPrice's returned baseAssetPrice, which is spotPrice returned by perpMarket.assetPrice, to calculate and return the markPrice. When such spotPrice is 0, this function...

An attacker can manipulate the preDepositvePrice to steal from other users.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first user that stakes can manipulate the total supply of sfTokens and by doing so create a rounding error for each subsequent user. In the worst case, an attacker can steal all the funds of the next user. Proof of Concept When the first user enters...

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...

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:...

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...

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...

_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...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #776 [1701456793936]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 776 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Low-01 No minimum AmountrsETH receive parameter absent in depositAsset Here we can see that User deposit asset via depositAsset which take asset address and asset depositAmount as parameter Then rsethAmountMinted...

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...

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...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #776 [1701452999417]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 776 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Low-01 No minimum AmountrsETH receive parameter absent in depositAsset Here we can see that User deposit asset via depositAsset which take asset address and asset depositAmount as parameter Then rsethAmountMinted...

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...

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:...

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...

_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...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #776 [1701285150754]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 776 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Low-01 No minimum AmountrsETH receive parameter absent in depositAsset Here we can see that User deposit asset via depositAsset which take asset address and asset depositAmount as parameter Then rsethAmountMinted...

Return values of approve() not checked

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

Title of issue/finding

Lines of code , Vulnerability details Impact description for the issue found Content includes @Audit stack and code example of the issue Content includes @Audit stack and code example of the issue Assessed type other --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All...

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...

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

Lines of code 359, 448, 509, 530, 42, 797, 162 Vulnerability details Impact 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...

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...

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

Lines of code 110 Vulnerability details Impact 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, th...

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

Lines of code 139, 178, 204 Vulnerability details Impact 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...

Unchecked return value of low-level

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact description of issue/finding Content includes @Audit stack and code example of the issue Assessed type other --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

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

Lines of code 455, 280, 378, 411 Vulnerability details Impact 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 ...

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...

latestAnswer() may return stale values

Lines of code 121, 122, 123, 124, 51 Vulnerability details Impact 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:...

Proxy's logic contract relies on code in the constructor

Lines of code 122, 50, 25, 67, 98, 67, 22 Vulnerability details Impact Logic contracts cannot rely on code in their constructors, because proxy contracts do not re-execute the logic contract's constructor - only its initializer. Move all code in the constructor to the initializer function. File:...

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...

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

Lines of code 117 Vulnerability details Impact 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...

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

Lines of code 377, 509, 491, 530, 42, 50 Vulnerability details Impact 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...

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 Impact 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...

Unsafe use of approve() with IERC20

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