Caller.callBatched doesn't enforce msg.value is equal to sum of call values

Lines of code Vulnerability details For each call in callBatched, we pass a value to be sent along with the call: for uint256 i = 0; i calls.length; i++ Call memory call = callsi; returnDatai = callsender, call.to, call.data, call.value; The sum of the values of the calls should be equal to...

Reentrancy due to lack of check-effect-interact pattern by valid Driver users

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In a Re-entrancy attack, a malicious contract calls back into the calling contract before the first invocation of the function is finished. This may cause the different invocations of the function to interact in undesirable ways, especially in cases wher...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #867 [1675460709593]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 867 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-01, ProtocolDAO.sol lines 209 - 216: upgradeExistingContract mistakenly removes the address value of the new contract if the new contract’s name is the same as the old one. This can be easily fixed with unregisteri...

DIVISION BY _AMT_PER_SEC_MULTIPLIER AT EACH STEP OF THE ARITHMETIC OPERATION BEFORE MULTIPLICATION RESULTS IN ROUNDING ERROR

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the drippedAmt function of the Drips.sol contract, the assembly is used to calculate the amount dripped over a time range. Inside the assembly amtPerCycle is calculated by multiplying cycleSecs and amtPerSec and dividing by AMTPERSECMULTIPLIER to remo...

Squeezing drips from a sender can be front-run and prevented by the sender

Lines of code Vulnerability details Squeezing drips from a sender requires providing the sequence of drips configurations see NatSpec description in L337-L338: /// It can start at an arbitrary past configuration, but must describe all the configurations /// which have been used since then includi...

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #867 [1675460716325]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 867 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-02, MinipoolManager, lines 670 - 684: The slash function slashes a node operator for the amount of whole duration. Since the cycles are in 14 days and the slashing is checked in the recordStakingEnd, if an operator...

Attacker can frontrun a victim's mint+add transaction to steal NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact High - an attacker can steal deposited NFTs from victims using the mint + add functionality in CidNFT.sol Proof of Concept One of the core features of CID Protocol is the ability for users to attach Subprotocol NFTs to their CidNFT. The CidNFT contract...

ERC721 safeTransferFrom is not enough to safeguard a subprotocol NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept There is a safeguard mechanism to ensure that no transfers of the subprotocol NFT happen after said NFT is tied to the CID NFT. Without it, someone could transfer or even burn the subprotocol NFT while it is still associated. // The CID Protoco...

Upgraded Q -> M from #694 [1675343502331]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 694 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: there is no check that duration of the Minipool is bigger than 14 days and a malicious node runner can set duration as 0 day and if he fails the calculated slash amount would be 0. --- The text was updated...

Critical Vulnerability exposed Reentrancy attack allowing unlimited Fund Withdrawals.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function register where it transfers a fixed amount of $NOTE tokens 100 $NOTE to the cidFeeWallet address without checking the reentrancy status. An attacker can repeatedly call this function to drain the contract balance...

SubprotocolRegistry is vulnerable to malicious names

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A malicious subprotocol can register a name that looks the same as any other protocol. Users may use the malicious subprotocol because they can't distinguish the names, and be cheated out of subprotocolFee. Proof of Concept Any subprotocol can be...

Upgraded Q -> H from #694 [1675343512989]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 694 as H risk. The relevant finding follows: there is no check that duration of the Minipool is less than 365 days and if user by mistake set very high value for duration and fails to run node properly user would lose very large number of his GGP collaterals...

[H-01] Reentrancy attack is possible when using ERC777 tokens in DripsHub

Lines of code Vulnerability details H-01 Reentrancy attack is possible when using ERC777 tokens in DripsHub Impact: Some ERC20 tokens implement the EIP 777 interface including the tokensToSend hook, which performs a callback to the user from which tokens will be transferred before the tokens are...

Fee can be transferred to the zero address while subprotocol registeration

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Everytime user register a new subprotocol to the registry contract, the registry contract transfer the fee to the cidFeeWallet from the registrar. There is missing vaildation that the transfer should not goes to zero address. If no address has been set f...

Use abi.encode instead of abi.encodePacked to prevent data collisions for object hashing

Lines of code Vulnerability details M-01 Use abi.encode instead of abi.encodePacked Impact hash collisions on the data stored for object hashing Proof of Concept From the solidity documentation: If you use keccak256abi.encodePackeda, b and both a and b are dynamic types, it is easy to craft...

Unchecked External Call Vulnerability in ownerOf Function Call.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the worst-case scenario, if the ownerOf function call reverts due to a security vulnerability in the ERC721 contract, the caller's data could be manipulated, and their funds could be at risk. This could lead to a loss of funds for users who have...

An approved operator of a CID NFT owner can steall any subprotocol NFTs from the CID NFT Owner and his other approved operators.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. An approved operator of a CID NFT owner, if becomes malicious or compromised, can steal any subprotocol NFTs from the CID NFT Owner and his other approved operators. This is possible because: after...

Attacker can steal subprotocol NFT from user who use mint and add

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact CidNFT.mintbytes allow user to mint and add subprotocol NFTs directly after minting. The addList args to the add call include the cidNFTID param, which can change if there are other mint before the user's transaction. Additionally, CidNFT.add only check ...

Solmate's safeTransfer can result in failed transfer with low level call and won't revert as it does not check the codesize of to address, which may lead to loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details The following contract use solmate's SafeTransferLib : solmate/utils/SafeTransferLib.sol Solmate's safeTransfer / safeTransferFrom uses inline assembly call to transfer ether from contract to receiver. According to Solidity Docs the call may return true even if...

cidFeeWallet can be address(0)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact TLDR; the cidFeeWallet can be assigned to address0, in which case fees would be burned but otherwise the system operates as expected. In the constructor for both SubprotocolRegistry and CidNFT, a wallet is assigned to which fees will be sent. This applie...

DOS mint and add by frontrunning

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact CidNFT.mintbytes allow user to mint and add subprotocol NFTs directly after minting. The addList args to the add call include the cidNFTID param, which can change if there are other mint before the user's transaction. Proof of Concept An attacker can DOS...

Make calculation using 1e18 but protocol allows tokens with different scale

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Make calculation using 1e18 but protocol allows tokens with different scale. Proof of Concept Method: Calculation: Factory: Here in factory user can add tokens with scale from 6 to 18. Tools Used Static analytics Code reading Recommended Mitigation Steps...

Precision loss in the invariant function can lead to loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can steal the funds without affecting the invariant. Proof of Concept We can say the function Pair.invariant is the heart of the protocol. All the malicious trades should be prevented by this function. Pair.sol 52: /// @inheritdoc IPair 53:...

Lack of slippage protection when swapping on Uniswap v2/v3

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Lack of slippage protection when swapping on Uniswap v2/v3. It'll create the potential to be sandwiched by MEV bots and result in user loss. Proof of Concept In the LendgineRouter.mint function, the contract would swap all the token0 to token1 in...

No support non-18 decimals token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function is dependent on the token being of 18 decimals for correct calculation. If the project wants to use other tokens then it underlying native token. It would have to relaunch to accommodate this, or it can be forgotten and lead to future wrong...

Upgraded Q -> M from #819 [1675276661349]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 819 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Scenarios 3 & 4 are basically the same and valid. Duplicate of 569 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

TOKEN BALANCE OF A PARTICULAR ADDRESS IS NOT CHECKED AGAINST THE REQUESTED TRANSFER AMOUNT INSIDE TRANSFER AND TRANSFERFROM FUNCTIONS IN ERC20.sol CONTRACT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact transfer and transferFrom functions do not check for the available erc20 token balance of the from address and the msg.sender respectively against the requested transfer amount. Hence if the balanceOffrom and balanceOfmsg.sender in the transferFrom and...

Unchecked that address to is not 0

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Sanity checks checking that funds are not going to the burn address should be done. In this case in the function swap, funds will not burn because you have to return the flashloan but the check should be made Tools Used manual Recommended Mitigation Step...

The LiquidityManager.pairMintCallback() might be exploited to steal funding from another user when the factory contract is compromised.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. The LiquidityManager.pairMintCallback might be exploited to steal funding from another user due to three issues: 1. LiquidityManager.pairMintCallback is a callback function for the addLiquidity, which...

No-check taht amounts are less than reserves

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no check that the amount for the flashloan is actually available in the contract. It is checked that it should be 0 but not than reserves. Eventually, the function will revert because the funds are not there and the funds are not in the contract...

First liquidity provider will suffer from revert or fund loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first liquidity depositor should supply three input values amount0Min, amount1Min, liquidity via AddLiquidityParams but these three values should meet an accurate relationship, or else the depositor will suffer from revert or fund loss Proof of Conce...

Unchecked Return Values in SwapHelper.swap.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact SafeTransferLib.safeTransfertokenIn, msg.sender, amount0Delta 0 ? uint256amount0Delta : uint256amount1Delta; If the pool does not have enough liquidity, the UniswapV2Library functions will return a failure, but the SwapHelper.swap function does not...

Lack of access control in Lendgine.sol.withdraw()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Because the function does not check if the person has access to it, anyone can call it. After calling the function the malicious user can increase his position. 175: positions.updatemsg.sender, -SafeCast.toInt256size, rewardPerPositionStored; He can then...

Possibly Susceptible to Reentrancy Attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. No protection against reentrancy attacks, which could allow an attacker to exploit the contract's logic by calling functions in the contract before the original call is completed. Proof of Concept To...

Unprotected payable functions in Payment.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Payment.sol contract unwrapWETH and sweepToken functions are without any access control. They are public and and doesn't validate that it's being called by any permissioned account. The result is that anyone can steal tokens. Proof of Concept 25:...

A malicious early user/attacker can manipulate the share price to take an unfair share of future users' deposits

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A malicious early user/attacker can manipulate the share price to take an unfair share of future users' deposits. The first minter can manipulate the supply of LP tokens and baseToken-fractional ratio, hindering small liquidity providers from interacting...

Economical games that can be played to gain MEV

Lines of code Vulnerability details Disclaimer: Developers did an extremely good job writing the protocol, however, these are some aspects that I think are missed in the design stage and can be considered. Look at it as a food for thought in future designs. Impact How the invariant works The...

Payment multiple functions do not check the caller

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Multiple functions in the Payment contract do not check the caller, for example, an attacker can directly call refundETH to transfer assets in the contract function refundETH external payable //@audit if addressthis.balance 0...

Locked Ether

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Contract with a payable function, but without a withdrawal capacity. Impact Every Ether sent to LendgineRouter will be lost. Proof of Concept File: src/periphery/LendgineRouter.sol 142: function mintMintParams calldata params external payable...

Malicious user can create a dummy Lendgine contract by mimicing a salt with same encoding format but using a malicious AMM invariant function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Lendgine contract address is created using a salt that is generated by a hash of pool parameters in Factory.sol. A malicious user can create a Lendgine exploit contract that uses the salt generated by exact same encoding but this contract inherits a Pair...

Lendgine contract can be drained through mint() function due to lack of Access Control

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anybody can call the mint function on lendgine.sol and enter any amount of collateral. This allows them to mint any number of tokens to their address for free. Proof of Concept The mint function in lendgine.sol is external with no additional modifiers or...

Possible Reentrance & Unexpected Behaviour Vulnerabilities

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. No protection against reentrancy attacks, for example, the pay function called in the mintCallback function does not check for reentrancy before performing an external call. No checking of return values...

ERC20 TRANSFER AND TRANSFERFROM ARE NOT CHECKING FOR THE ZERO ADDRESS OF to AND from, DURING EXECUTION

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ERC20 standard tokens check for the != address0 condition in the transfer and transferFrom functions for the to address and from address in order to make sure funds are not transfered to zero address and balance is not updated in the balanceOf mapping fo...

Loss of funds - User has control of the fallback function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Imapct: Lendengine check the balanceBefore and after of token1, after sending tokens via a mintFallback function. During this fallback the user has access to theses tokens so far as it's returned + collateral the fallback is satisfied. A attacker can take out...

Upgraded Q -> M from #819 [1675276650768]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 819 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: If we are going with this specific impact, looks like scenario 2 is valid - but does depend on Rialto making that mistake, so would say that is Medium. This is a duplicate, the primary issue being 723 --- The text wa...

ANYONE CAN STEAL ETH THROUGH METHODS IN Payment.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Payment.sol contract, there is no access control on unwrapWETH, sweepToken and refundETH. So anyone can call these method to steal the Eth. Proof of Concept File: src/periphery/Payment.sol function unwrapWETHuint256 amountMinimum, address recipient...

DIVISION BEFORE MULTIPLICATION ERROR IN CALCULATING INTEREST CAN LEAD TO LARGER PRECISION LOSS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is a division before multiplication bug in accrueInterest method of Lendgine.sol which may result in loss of interest being accrued due to huge precision loss. There is same error in invariant method of Pair.sol as well which can cause larger...

Unprotected Ether Withdrawal

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Due to missing or insufficient access controls, malicious parties can withdraw some or all Ether from the contract account. This bug is sometimes caused by unintentionally exposing initialization functions. By wrongly naming a function intended to b...

Mint function should have a pause

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Even if a market is paused due to insolvency/bugs, there will still be minting going on. This leaves no protection against mining in such case. Tools Used VS code Recommended Mitigation Steps Check in function mint that the market is not paused. For...

Fee on transfer tokens will not behave as expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Numoen, it does not specifically restrict the type of ERC20 collateral used for borrowing. If fee on transfer tokens is/are entailed, it will specifically make mint revert in Lendgine.sol when checking if balanceAfter balanceBefore + collateral. Proof...