10190 matches found
Replayable signature in the mintReceipt function
Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In the mintReceipt function there is a check of the claimSignerAddress signature: if keccak256abi.encodePackedmsg.sender, questId != hash revert InvalidHash; if recoverSignerhash, signature != claimSignerAddress revert AddressNotSigned; The signatur...
Wrongly implemented modifier allow anybody to mint receipts.
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Quest rewards can be claimed by anybody without completing any task. RabbitHoleReceipt.onlyMinter modifier purpose is to allow only designated addresses to mint new receipts like QuestFactory smart contract. But since the input is not validated anybody c...
Bad implementation in minter access control for RabbitHoleReceipt and RabbitHoleTickets contracts
Lines of code Vulnerability details Both RabbitHoleReceipt and RabbitHoleTickets contracts define a mint function that is protected by a onlyMinter modifier: RabbitHoleReceipt: function mintaddress to, string memory questId public onlyMinter tokenIds.increment; uint newTokenID = tokenIds.current;...
TEST
Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details THIS IS A TEST --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
claim can run out of gas
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the claim function runs out of gas, the caller can never claim any rewards without transferring the nfts to another address first Proof of Concept Currently, the claim function loops over the msg.senders NFT's. If this list ever becomes too large, the...
Mitigation of M-06: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details The sponsor disputes the issue, but never follows up after judge's comments, so the same issue remains in the new code. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Mitigation of M-05: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-05: Issue not mitigated --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
driverID can make same userID registered under different different driverID's leading to loss of funds and ultimately the trust of people.
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact driverID can make same userID registered under different different driverID's leading to loss of funds and ultimately the trust of people. Proof of Concept In contract dripsHub their is no mechanism to check a user already registered under driverID or no...
Mitigation of M-07: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-07: Issue not mitigated --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Mitigation of H-05: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details The sponsor confirmed the issue, but did not provide any PRs addressing it, so the same issue remains in the new code. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
User might not be able to claim refund when the NFT is bought for less than the minimum reserve price
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User might not be able to claim refund when the NFT is bought for less than the minimum reserve price because the minReservePrices is rounded down, which make the contract refund sightly more eth to each user. In most case, the last user will not be able...
Mitigation of M-05: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details The sponsor disputes the issue, but never follows up after judge's comments, so the same issue remains in the new code. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Mitigation of M-07: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details The sponsor confirmed but disputed Medium severity, and did not provide any PRs addressing it, so the same issue remains in the new code. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Mitigation of H-02: See comments
Lines of code Vulnerability details The PR applies the recommended mitigation from the finding, but doesn't take into account the rounding issue identified in M-09 Impact If the price the NFT is bought for is not an exact multiple of the filledQuantities, there will be a loss of precision, and...
Incorrect calculation
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact On line 119, the result of the conversion is always going to be zero. Therefore, functions that apply onlyDriver modifier will never be executed. Proof of Concept Please deploy the code below to test the modifier's broken implementation. //...
Attacker can steal the NFT bought by sending it to another vault he control
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The mitigation of H-08 try to validate the vault returned by market with the VaultRegistry. However, it only validated if the vault exists, but not if it is the correct vault. A similar attack described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings47 can be...
Mitigation of M-01: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details The sponsor appears to confirm with no-fix and did not provide any PRs addressing it, so the same issue remains in the new code. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Mitigation of M-06: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-06: Issue not mitigated --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Integer Overflow Vulnerability in _addSplittable Function.
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact splitsStorage.splitsStatesuserId.balancesassetId.splittable += amt; This vulnerability, if exploited, would allow an attacker to add a large amount of funds to a user's splittable balance, causing it to exceed the maximum value that the uint128 type can...
Mitigation of M-01: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-01: Issue not mitigated --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Mitigation of M-02: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-02: Issue not mitigated --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Mitigation of M-03: See comments
Lines of code Vulnerability details The PR does not follow the recommended mitigation from the finding, and instead still allows under-priced bids to be added if the total value being added is at least a multiple of the minimum reserve price. Impact If, for example, the reserve price is 10 Eth,...
Lack of flexibility in updating cycle length leading to potential contract redeployment.
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact function cycleOfuint32 timestamp private view returns uint32 cycle unchecked return timestamp / cycleSecs + 1; and function currCycleStart private view returns uint32 timestamp uint32 currTimestamp = currTimestamp; // slither-disable-next-line weak-prng...
Mitigation of M-04: See comments
Lines of code Vulnerability details The PR does NOT fix the issue described in the finding, and instead addresses issue 45. The change breaks out of the loop, which solves the case where the price is the same as the lowest bid, but doesn't address the case where the price is higher than the lowes...
Incorrect calculation
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact On line 119, the result of the conversion is always going to be zero. Therefore, functions that apply onlyDriver modifier will never be executed. Proof of Concept Please deploy the code below to test the modifier's broken implementation. //...
Mitigation of M-08: See comments
Lines of code Vulnerability details The PR applies the recommended mitigation from the finding, but the original finding's mitigation suggestion seems to indicated that the If two users place bids at the same price but with different quantities, the queue will pull from the bid with a higher...
Mitigation of M-02: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details The sponsor appears to confirm Medium severity, but did not provide any PRs addressing it, so the same issue remains in the new code. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Unpacking the "0x1626ba7e" Mystery: The Risks of Unidentified Fixed Values in Smart Contracts - loss of funds
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The use of a fixed value in the require statement without understanding its significance creates a security vulnerability in the contract. An attacker could manipulate the returned value to bypass the require statement and execute malicious code. This ca...
Mitigation of H-05: Issue not mitigated
Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of H-05: Issue not mitigated --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Only one GroupBuy can ever use USDT or similar tokens with front-running approval protections
Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings37 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Loss of ETH for proposer when it is a contract that doesn't have fallback function.
Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings40 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Attacker can DOS OptimisticListing with very low cost
Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings25 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
GroupBuy may purchase NFT not in the allowed list
Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings14 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Orders may not be fillable due to missing approvals
Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings36 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Enormous tokens can be minted by malicious user via reentrancy
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function safeMInt that is used to mint new tokens, makes an external call to ERC721.sol's safeMint which contains a callback to the "to" address argument. checkOnERC721Receivedaddress0, to, tokenId, data safeMint lacks a reentrancy guard, a malicious...
Attacker can delay proposal rejection
Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings24 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Overflow Vulnerability in Splits Contract Due to Maximum Splits Receivers Limitation (_MAX_SPLITS_RECEIVERS = 200)
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If more than 200 splits receivers are added for a single user, the constant MAXSPLITSRECEIVERS will be exceeded, causing unexpected behavior in the contract uint256 internal constant MAXSPLITSRECEIVERS = 200; Proof of Concept a. Create an array of splits...
Gas Optimizations
See the markdown file with the details of this report here. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
reentrancy in TimeswapV2Option.collect()
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact collect function doesn't respect the check-effect-interaction pattern, where in the case if a param.data is provided it makes an external call to the caller, right after that, it updates option short amount state. in the case if the caller calls back int...
Incorrect _removeTokenEnumeration implementation of ERC1155Enumerable
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact removeTokenFromAllTokensEnumeration can never be called, because of wrong order of if statement and idTotalSupplyid -= amount;. This leads to totalSupply do not correctly minus 1 when all token amounts for a specific tokenId get burned. Proof of Concept...
TimeswapV2LiquidityToken should not use totalSupply()+1 as tokenId
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Assuming ERC1155Enumerable is acting normally, there is a Accounting Issue about TimeswapV2LiquidityToken and TimeswapV2Token's tokenId. Different liquidities can have the same tokenId, leading to serious balance manipulation. I'm submitting this issue a...
Fee on transfer tokens will not behave as expected
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact According to Whitepaper 1.1 Permissionless: "In Timeswap, liquidity providers can create pools for any ERC20 pair, without permission. It is designed to be generalized and works for any pair of tokens, at any time frame, and at any market state ... If fe...
User receives lesser number of Long Tokens on burning Pool liquidity resulting in loss of user funds
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Protocol currently uses 2 levels of callbacks for burning Pool liquidity: Inner callback - timeswapV2PoolBurnChoiceCallback function in Line 438 of Pool.sol allows user to specify long0 & long1 amount such that long0 + long1 longAmount. longAmount here...
sqrtDiscriminant can be calculated wrong
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Due to the wrong calculation of short and long tokens during the leverage and deleverage process, the users can suffer financial loss while the protocol will lose fees Proof of Concept The protocol uses leverage function to deposit short tokens and recei...
Wrong logic in ConstantProduct.sol
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Wrong logic when comparing longAmount and shortAmount can lead to unexpected things Proof of Concept 108: if isAdd ? amount = shortAmount : amount = shortAmount longAmount = amount; When amount = shortAmount: If isAdd = amount = shortAmount = longAmount ...
Using V2-Pool, user can loose money after minting, then burn due to duration calculation
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users loose money over time after mint using V2-Pool due to the protocol duration calculation. The current duration calculation is calculated from now to maturity. So when the user mint, then burn the liquidity, with time the amount of short he get is...
Malicious lender can create pool imbalance by tricking V2 pool into accepting disproportionately large number of long tokens in exchange for short tokens
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Timeswap V2 Pool works on constant product AMM where the total long tokens & short tokens follow the equation total long total short = L. Any increase in short tokens caused by lenders has to be accompanied with a proportionate drop in long tokens to kee...
ATTACKER CAN STEAL FUNDS BECAUSE OF REENTRANCY VULNERABILITY IN burn METHOD
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In burn method of TimeswapV2Option contract, there is no Reentrancy guard. The method allows a Callback function before updating the State variable, which makes method vulnerable for Reentrancy which can lead to steal of funds. Proof of Concept File:...
Burn will not work if positions below to different owners
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When an option is created, the caller has an option of choosing any address to mint these three option positions to long0, long1, short or if the caller chooses the options can be added for the caller alone . The positons could be transferred through...
Loss of Long tokens when users send excess tokens to pool while minting LP tokens
Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Protocol currently uses 2 levels of callbacks for minting: Inner Level callback: timeswapV2PoolMintChoiceCallback function in Line 349 of Pool.sol that allows users to choose Long0 and Long1 amounts such that long0 + long1converted based on strike = long...