Funds of Node Operators can be nullified by any attacker

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The MinipoolManager.createMinipool function do not validate the caller's address due to which any address can invoke the createMinipool function with any nodeID existing or new as input. For any existing nodeID the function can be invoked as long as the...

PROTOCOL MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO OPERATE DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Redeem/withdraw functionality will fail under certain conditions and users who want to redeem/withdraw their AVAX will not be able to. Proof of Concept Users stake their AVAX and in return get ggAVAX. The AVAX provided by the users is then staked by the...

Owner may lose funds if Minipool is recreated before funds are withdrawn

Lines of code Vulnerability details The createMinipool function of the MinipoolManager contract can be used to reinitialize an existing minipool and potentially lose user funds. If the given nodeID has an existing minipool index, then the state for the minipool is reset: if minipoolIndex != -1...

Contract cannot be initialized due to revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact TokenggAVAX.initialize would revert due to the constructor setting initialized to typeuint8.max = 255 thus making initialized not less than 1. This does not pass the require check in initializer modifier, thus resulting to a revert thereby making...

FIRST DEPOSIT CAN BREAK SHARE CALCULATIONS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Future depositors are forced to pay a huge value of assets to deposit. It is not practically possible for all users. This could directly affect the attrition of users towards this system. Proof of Concept A well-known attack vector for almost all...

Increase in ERC4626 shares due to inflation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. A bad actor can exploit the Vault by depositing a small amount of asset tokens 1 wei and receiving 1 wei of shares tokens. The attacker can then send a large amount of asset tokens 10000e18 - 1 to infla...

The owner minipool count is not decreased in the case of a staking error

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a node operator creates a new pool or the recreateMinipool function is called the minipool count of the owner is increased by 1 and when the staking ends the multisig calls the recordStakingEnd function which will decrease the owner minipool count b...

MinipoolManager.sol : createMinipool does not check the owner of node when overwriting

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact owner will be deprived from picking the node id which they already used. when natspec says // If nodeID exists, only allow overwriting if node is finished or canceled The pool that are marked as Withdrawable and Error are also used to overwrite the node ...

Malicious user can use previously used nodeID to prevent user(s) from withdrawing minipool funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details In createMinipool, an event is emitted with details of a newly created minipool. This includes relevant information that a subsequent user can utilise to create another minipool.The only condition that prevents a minipool from being created again with the same...

GGP slashing mechanism is incomplete.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol docs mentions that "If the validator is failing at their duties, their GGP will be slashed and used to compensate the loss to our Liquid Stakers." But the actual implementation of the Staking.slashGGP function is very different from the abov...

NODE OPERATORS CAN WITHDRAW ALL THEIR GGP COLLATERAL BEFORE VALIDATION PERIOD ENDS THEREBY AVOIDING SLASHING.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact 1. Node operators can avoid slashing, thus no penalties. 2. Node operators can withdraw their entire GGP collateral before the validation period is over. Proof of Concept The withdrawGGP function in Staking.sol transfers back to node operator excess GGP...

First TokenggAVAX deposit exploit can break share calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details convertToShares function follow the formula: return supply == 0 ? assets : assets.mulDivDownsupply, totalAssets; The share price always return 1:1 with asset token. If everything work normally, share price will slowly increase with time to 1:2 or 1:10 as more...

SLASH LOGIC INAPPROPRIATELY IMPLEMENTED

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The slash logic in the protocol has overlooked the following two issues: slashminipoolIndex is only called when avaxTotalRewardAmt is equal to 0 which forgoes all other low performing instances even if the node operator has only brought in 1 wei of AVAX...

JIT(JUST-IN TIME) LIQUIDITY OPPORTUNITIES EXISTS FOR USERS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The MEV opportunity created robs the honest users who deposit before the start of a reward cycle. Leading to loss of rewards for said users. Proof of Concept A user deposits AVAX into tokenggAVAX.sol and in return gets an lp token to represent their...

EXTERNAL CALL TO UNTRUSTED PARTIES

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Functions in this contract or inherited functions can be reentered. Proof of Concept In Vault.sol the withdrawAVAX and redeemAVAX functions make an external call to the msg.sender by way of safeTransferETH. This allows the caller to reenter this and othe...

Possible to block withdrawal of staked funds after recordStakingEnd or stakingError

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Node operators can lose their staked AVAX after stakingEnd or stakingError. Funds will be locked in the Staking contract, but impossible to withdraw. A bad actor does need to supply 1000 AVAX which he gets back and has not have real incentive to do it, b...

Upgraded Q -> M from #188 [1671981716625]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 188 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 188 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from #4 [1671756144822]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 4 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: GroupBuy: Insertion timestamp ignored The documentation states that "If the users have the same quantity as well, the bid that was placed later will have Raes removed.". However, with the current implementation, this i...

Grief on transfers due to vestingStart during vesting

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Past similar finding with the same severity: code-423n4/2022-05-runes-findings30 While centralization risk is acknowledged by the team & the C4udit tool: this may lead to loss of functionality grief. Proof of concept There is no requirement for the start...

Non-standard ERC20 tokens are locked in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function forwardERC20s transfers ERC20 tokens out of the contract to the owner. However, it does not properly handle non-standard ERC20 tokens such as USDT which do not return a bool when the transfer is called. The issue is that token is of type...

RuniverseLand.sol#mint() can be bricked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact RuniverseLand.solmint can be bricked. Proof of Concept The mint function uses numMinted to generate the tokenId: File: RuniverseLand.sol 72: function mintaddress recipient, PlotSize size 73: public 74: override 75: returns uint256 76: 77: uint256 tokenId...

secondaryMinter may break plotsAvailablePerSize

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact RuniverseLand allows primaryMinter and secondaryMinter to mint NFT. function mintTokenId address recipient, uint256 tokenId, PlotSize size public override nonReentrant requirenumMinted MAXSUPPLY, "All land has been minted"; require msgSender ==...

RuniverseLandMinter._mintTokensUsingTokenId does not verify that the tokenId matches the corresponding plotSize

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first eight digits of the RuniverseLand TokenID indicate the corresponding plotSize of the NFT owner can call RuniverseLandMinter.ownerMintUsingTokenId directly to mint the NFT for a specific TokenID In RuniverseLandMinter.mintTokensUsingTokenId, the...

RuniverseLand mint function does not work

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function mint of RuniverseLand will not work and seemingly unnecessary Proof of Concept RuniverseLand.sol has a public function mint that can be used to mint a new plot. Note that this function uses numMinted as a new token ID while numMinted denotes...

Upgraded Q -> M from #32 [1671721748112]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 32 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 2. StableVault deposits are limited to 18 decimals During deposit and withdraw to/from StableVault contract, it mints/burns the same amount of stable tokens with respect to decimals. The current implementation support...

SOLMATE SAFETRANSFER AND SAFETRANSFERFROM DOES NOT CHECK THE CODESIZE OF THE TOKEN ADDRESS, WHICH MAY LEAD TO FUND LOSS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reference from a previous Contrest : In uniswapV3SwapCallback and sendPaprFromAuctionFees the safetransfer and safetransferfrom doesn’t check the existence of code at the token address. This is a known issue while using solmate’s libraries. Hence this ma...

Misunderstanding operator with from

Lines of code Vulnerability details Author: rotcivegaf Impact The owner of the ERC721 token could approve an operator to manage his tokens With the misunderstanding of operator with from in the onERC721Received function the benefits of this function goes to the operator instead of the fromowner:...

ownerMintUsingTokenId can brick the whole contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact With the function ownerMintUsingTokenId, it is possible for the owner to mint a token with an arbitrary token ID. However, this can brick the whole contract and cause a situation where no more mints / buys are possible. This happens when a token ID is...

Contract owner can drain all NFT collateral

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact To add NFTs as collateral to the protocol and it to create debt, the owner has to approve each NFT contract address first. As anyone can create their own papr vaults with arbitrary allowed NFTs by design, this opens the possibility for malicious actors t...

purchaseLiquidationAuctionNFT() may incorrectly returned the Auction funds to the liquidated user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact may incorrectly returned the Auction funds to the liquidated user in purchaseLiquidationAuctionNFT, After someone purchases the auction NFT, the amount of the auction received will be distributed. In the existing logic, when the amount of the auction is...

setPlotsAvailablePerSize does not work correctly

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function setPlotsAvailablePerSize can be used for two things: 1. Decreasing the number of plots that is available for a certain size 2. Increase the number of plots that is available for a certain size However, in both cases it can introduce errors...

PaprController should not pay the swap fee in buyAndReduceDebt

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The best case scenario is that the paprController doesn't have any underlying tokens, in which case, buyAndReduceDebt won't work when there is a swapFee. Otherwise, paprController ends up paying for the swapFee. Even if there isn't a swap fee, the user c...

Extensive permissions for owner

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact & Proof Of Concepts / Implications Some privileged functions are often unavoidable in smart contracts. However, in these contracts, the privileges are unnecessarily very extensive and without checks on the smart contract side: 1. He can use ownerMint or...

code doesn't check that the Uniswap pool is not exist and if attacker creates the uniswap pool before hand with calculatable papr address and underlying address and exact fee amount, then the deployment transaction would fail always

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact attacker can perform DOS and prevent contract from getting deployed. the address of papr can be calculate by attacker before its deployment and the address of the underlyingUSDC and the fee is known, attacker can create uniswap pool before-hand and cause...

Malicious user able to start auction to any NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Any address can start an auction for an NFT, regardless of whether they are the actual owner of the NFT. This vulnerability could allow an attacker to start auctions for NFTs that they do not own, potentially leading to financial losses for the true owne...

NFT operators of OpenZeppelin-based NFTs can issue debt

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The Papr protocol allows NFT owners to issue debt against NFTs they deposit, denominated in papr. The solmate contracts that are used as imports for the project do not allow an operator on the NFT to participate in debt-creation; the ERC721 contract...

PaprController.onERC721Received() assigns collateral to operator's vault instead of the nft owner's one

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The collateral is assigned to the operator's vault because of a parameter mismatch. This impacts the ability of third parties to integrate the PaprController contract. You're not able to create an intermediary contract that adds collateral to a user's...

NFT owner only is allowed for liquidation, this may not work for all the cases, the debt can be insolvent

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When bad debt is not paid or not able to recover the through auction of NFT, then the debt will be insolvent. Proof of Concept Contract allows for liquidation to recover the debt. Also, it has the auctioning mechanism to recover the debt by selling the...

PaprController.removeCollateral() only takes the price of the first collateral to determine whether the NFTs can be withdrawn

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Unintended leniency of protocol will be taken advantage by users. Users can withdraw NFTs even if their debt of a particular NFT is higher than intended. Proof of Concept When a user wants to removeCollateral, he calls removeCollateral which loops each...

if msg.sender != account, then msg.sender double pays in buyAndReduceDebt

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If msg.sender chooses to pay for some other account's debt, then he has to pay double. Proof of Concept msg.sender first has to pay the underlying tokens the paprToken from the swap goes to account controller then burns the papr tokens from msg.sender...

There is no way to extract fees when someones wants to reduce a debt by paying with underlying tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a user is buying the debt of an account or its own debt, it either have the choice to use the reduceDebt function in order to pay with PAPR tokens, or by paying in underlying tokens can be USDC, WETH, .... A protocol that would choose to...

PaprController.sol: reservoir oracle price equal to 0 allows bypassing NFT liquidations

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When there is a reservoir oracle message with the price of the NFT equal to zero, the debt of a vault will be reset in the PaprController.purchaseLiquidationAuctionNFT function when a NFT is bought in an auction. So the borrower can now withdraw all othe...

totalCollateralValue in maxDebt may not be calculated correctly everytime

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact totalCollateralValue in maxDebt may not be calculated correctly sometimes which leads to questionable lending procedures. Proof of Concept Bob has 10 BAYC NFTs, one of which is an extremely rare one with a crown and a rainbow body, which costs about 150...

incorrect message signer check in ecrecover() and no validation for oracleSigner which would cause all the unsigned messagess to be considered asvalid ones

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact address oracleSigner has been used to verify signed messages by comparing the return value of ecrecover by oracleSigner. but the return value of ecrecover would be 0x0 and code doesn't check that return value is not 0x0. if owner set oracleSigner as 0x0 ...

attacker can create un collateralized debt by reentrancy attack during _removeCollateral() by removing all collaterals and liquidating the last one which would set debt to zero. unfair liquidation can happen with reentrancy too

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function removeCollateral removes collateral from msg.senders vault and code allows for onReceive hook to sell and repay debt before the debt check. during the hook function user can call other function of the PaprController contract, it's possible for...

Protocol faces truncation issue in some places due to solidity integer division

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact UniswapOracleFundingRateController.sol : periodRatio , targetMarkRatio - less multiplier output than the actual value that is possible. EDAPrice.sol: again the final outcome affects the multiplier. Please refer the code link in POC. PaprController.sol:...

Liquidation logic is incorrect in some conditions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Because purchaseLiquidationAuctionNFT function clears remaining debt of debtor if he has no more collateral, it's possible that when 2 auctions exists in same time, liquidation logic will not work properly and debt will be nullified before last auction i...

fundingRate formula and _multiplier()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The formula used formultiplier will not work as expected. The target price update will be inaccurate and all the borrow/repay/liquidation functions will use the inaccurate target price. The impacts might be: Target price and mark price track will not wor...

Some NFTs could be possibly stuck and can not be withdrawn when removing the collateral

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When adding a collateral, the protocol transfers the NFT from the user to the contract by calling ERC721's transferFrom, and when removing the collateral, safeTransferFrom is called to allow for onReceive hook to be triggered as intended by the protocol...

Collateral NFT deposited to a wrong address, when transferred directly to PaprController

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users will lose collateral NFTs when they are transferred to PaprController by an approved address or an operator. Proof of Concept The PaprController allows users to deposit NFTs as collateral to borrow Papr tokens. One of the way of depositing is by...