Bad modifier definition

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The modifiers holding the name "onlyMinter", defined in the "contracts/RabbitHoleReceipt.sol" and "contracts/RabbitHoleTickets.sol" files do not implement an if or require checks. The lack of checking means that the modifiers do nothing about regulating...

withdrawFee should only be allowed to called once.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the current implementation, the function withdrawFee can be called multiple times. It should only be allowed to called once. Calling more than once would let owner steal from legit users as there won’t be enough funds left for legit users to claim...

The onlyMinter modifier checks the wrong condition.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In RabbitHoleReceipt.sol and RabbitHoleTicket.sol, receipts and tickets can be minted by anyone. Proof of Concept The first line inside the modifier can be passed without reverting for any callers. modifier onlyMinter msg.sender == minterAddress; ; Tools...

Immutable varibles should be checked to there default values

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is very important to check whether the immutable variables are not equal to the default values because if Quest is created and when we pass a default value to a variable then it can't be changed and it can lead to a problem. Proof of Concept Suppose...

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...

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 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...

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. //...

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-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...

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...

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,...

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...

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 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 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...

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-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-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...

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-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...

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-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...

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-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. //...

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...

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-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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Anyone Can Collect The Transaction Fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact collectTransactionFees is a function that should be only calles by the liquidity providers , but the the flow of the function no restriction , lets anyone collect the fees. Proof of Concept 1. Alice decides to collect the fees of pool A for example 2...

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...

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...

QA Report

See the markdown file with the details of this report here. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Timeswap Options has no reentry check and is providing a set of flashloan with no fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details high-flashloan-provider @timeswap Impact In the file /package/v2-option/TimeswapV2Option.sol, There are a range of functions that has no Reentry check. As a consequence, when the contract call back msg.sender, an attacker can then reeentry in his own callee...

In TimeswapV2LiquidityToken.sol and TimeswapV2Token.sol, different positions might be minted to the same id.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In this protocol, all positions should have unique ids to track and update their status. Currently, different positions might be minted to the same id and the main logic for the positions will be broken. Proof of Concept TimeswapV2LiquidityToken.mint set...

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...

STORAGE LOCATION OF liquidityPosition OF ONE USER IS OVERWRITEN BY THE liquidityPosition OF ANOTHER USER

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the pool.sol contract under the transferFees function, the pool liquidity position of the msg.sender is assigned to the storage variable liquidityPosition. And this liquidityPosition is updated for new fee allocation and fee burning. The transaction f...

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...

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...

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...

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...

transferFees forwards liquidityPosition without storage

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Currently, the transferFees function assigns in line 196 the following: liquidityPosition = pool.liquidityPositionsto; which is not a storage pointer. Proof of Concept Due to the missing storage pointer, update and mintFees functions will simply change t...