First depositor can break the price of shares

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first depositor of the pool can wreck up the price of the shares for the future depositors mostly as the pair launches because of the rounding. Proof of Concept 1. Bob wraps 1 NFT deposits and received 1e18 denominations of fractionalTokens 2. Bob...

Missing approval check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The lpToken.mint function is called with the msg.sender as the recipient, but there is no check to ensure that the sender has approved the contract to transfer the fractional tokens on their behalf. If the lptoken.mint function is missing a che...

GroupBuy can be drained of all ETH.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description purchase in GroupBuy faciilitates the purchasing of an NFT after enough contributions were gathered. Another report titled "Attacker can steal the amount collected so far in the GroupBuy for NFT purchase" describes a high impact bug in purchase. It ...

Priority queue min accounting breaks when nodes are split in two

Lines of code Vulnerability details The README states If two users place bids at the same price but with different quantities, the queue will pull from the bid with a higher quantity first, but the data-structure used for implementing this logic, is not used properly and essentially has its data...

Funds are permanently stuck in OptimisticListingSeaport.sol contract if active proposal is executed after new proposal is pending.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description constructOrder is called in propose, OptimisticListingSeaport.sol. It fills the order params stored in proposedListingsvault. orderParams.offerer = vault; orderParams.startTime = block.timestamp; // order doesn't expire in human time scales and need...

in add function forgot to add not zero for minimum lp

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact problems in the calculation of the system Proof of Concept requirebaseTokenAmount 0 && fractionalTokenAmount 0, "Input token amount is zero"; Tools Used manually Recommended Mitigation Steps add checks like basetoken --- The text was updated successfully...

First depositor can break minting of shares

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The attack vector and impact is the same as TOB-YEARN-003, where users may not receive shares in exchange for their deposits if the total asset amount has been manipulated through a large “donation”. Proof of Concept In Pair.add, the amount of LP token...

User will often overpay when adding liquidity

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact One of the assets either baseTokens or fractionalTokens will likely be overpaid when the user calls Pair.add liquidity. Proof of Concept The Pair.add function takes baseTokenAmount, fractionalTokenAmount and minLpTokenAmount as inputs. The first two...

Pair.sol : baseTokenReserves() can be manipulatable if the base token is native token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Price manipulation in following functions wherever the baseTokenReserves; is called. buyQuote, sellQuote, addQuote, removeQuote Proof of Concept function baseTokenReserves internal view returns uint256 return baseToken == address0 ? addressthis.balance -...

User loses collateral converted to pendingBalance when cash() or list() is called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In OptimisticListingOpensea, there are several functions which update pendingBalances of a proposer: 1. list 2. cash 3. propose Unfortunately, in list and cash the = operator is used instead of += when writing the new pendingBalances. For example:...

GroupBuy may purchase NFT not in the allowed list

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When purchaseProof.length == 0, GroupBuy.purchase compare the tokenId with the merkleRoot. This allow any tokenId that match the merkleRoot to be purchased, even if they are not included in the allow list during setup. if purchaseProof.length == 0 //...

User can provide malicious _market in GroupBuy.purchase to steal funds or NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The argument market of GroupBuy.purchase is not validated. The following call is directly performed on it: address vault = IMarketBuyermarket.executevalue: pricepurchaseOrder; Then, it is checked that the returned address owns the NFT: if...

GroupBuy does not check return value of call

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Both usages of call do not check if the transfer of ETH was succesful: payablemsg.sender.callvalue: contribution""; ... payablemsg.sender.callvalue: balance""; This can become very problematic when the recipient is a smart contract that reverts for...

Groupbuy: _verifyUnsuccessfulState and _verifySuccessfulState both can return true when block.timestamp == pool.terminationPeriod

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The functions verifyUnsuccessfulState and verifySuccessfulState should always have a differing behavior with regards to reversion, i.e. when one does not revert, the other should revert. In one condition, this is not true. Namely, when we have pool.succe...

Groupbuy: Construction of merkle tree allows some unintended IDs to be bought

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In GroupBuy.purchase, when no proof is provided, it is required that the provided token ID is equal to the stored merkleRoot: if purchaseProof.length == 0 // Hashes tokenId to verify merkle root if proof is empty if bytes32tokenId != merkleRoot revert...

OptimisticListingSeaport: pendingBalances overwritten instead of increased

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The functions list and cash overwrite the current value instead of increasing it: pendingBalancesvaultactiveListing.proposer = activeListing.collateral; pendingBalancesvaultactiveListing.proposer = collateral; This can be very problematic because the val...

OptimisticListingSeaport.propose sets pendingBalances of newly added proposer instead of previous one

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In OptimisticListingSeaport.propose, pendingBalances is set to the collateral. The purpose of this is that the proposer of a previous proposal can withdraw his collateral afterwards. However, this is done on the storage variable proposedListing after the...

Reentrancy in GroupBuy.purchase allows buying NFT twice

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In GroupBuy.purchase, poolInfopoolId.success which prevents buying the same NFT again is only set to true after the sale was executed. This can be exploited by reentering in the following line: address vault = IMarketBuyermarket.executevalue:...

GroupBuy: Lost ETH when the NFT is bought for less than the minimum reserve price

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The purchase function does not require that an NFT is bought for exactly minReservePricespoolId filledQuantitiespoolId, the price is only not allowed to be greater: if price minReservePricespoolId filledQuantitiespoolId revert InvalidPurchase; This makes...

Upgraded Q -> M from #315 [1671270502271]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 315 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Collateral.sol exposes a permissioned withdraw function: function managerWithdrawuint256 amount external override onlyRoleMANAGERWITHDRAWROLE nonReentrant if...

[NAZ-M1] fulfillRandomWords() Must Not Revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the current implementation of fulfillRandomWords can revert which it is not supposed to. Proof of Concept In the Chainlink documentation it states: "If your fulfillRandomWords implementation reverts, the VRF service will not attempt to call it a secon...

Use safeTransferFrom instead of transferFrom for ERC721 transfers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the contract VRFNFTRandomDraw.sol every transfer of ERC721 are done with the transferFrom instead of the recommended safeTransferFrom. This transferFrom does not check whether the receiver is capable of proper handling of NFTs. Proof of Concept If the...

After the redrawing the winner can lose his NFT for the Admin

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner can manipulate the raffle by deprivation of a specific address winner Proof of Concept Please copy the following POC on VRFNFTRandomDraw.t.sol function testadminRedrawingandReclaimnft public address winner = address0x1337; address winner2 =...

Token decimals may be above 18 leading to underflow issues

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In both StableVault and Trading, there is an assumption that token decimal amounts are =18. However this can break if token decimals are 18, resulting in underflow which can lead to unpredictable behaviors, and extreme amounts during deposits and...

Users can bypass the maxWinPercent limit using a partially closing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can bypass the maxWinPercent limit using a partial closing. As a result, users can receive more funds than their upper limit from the protocol. Proof of Concept As we can see from the documentation, there is limitation of a maximum PnL. Maximum PnL...

Choosing a cheap gas lane may result in no winners

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The drawer can choose whichever gas lanekeyHash they like. Giving this choice to the drawer may result in no winners if the network is congested and the drawer chooses a cheap gas lane. Recommended Mitigation Steps Check the options of keyHashes that can...

safeTransfer should be used instead of transferFrom in winnerClaimNFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The winner of the raffle may be a smart contract which doesn't handle NFTs, thus leaving the NFT irretrievably lost instead of being awarded to an address which can handle NFTs. Additionally, the NFT should be in the VRFNFTRandomDraw contract at the time...

In consistent parameters settings can break the business logic

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The usual business logic of the raffle should be that: If a user wins a raffle, he can always claim the NFT before a redraw can be initialized. However, the settings parameters can be set to inconsistent so that a winner may not be able to claim the NFT...

In case the winner is the address(0)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Temporary freezing NFT this can be more than one period Proof of Concept On VRFNFTRandomDraw.fulfillRandomWords 254 request.currentChosenTokenId = 255 randomWords0 % tokenRange + 256 settings.drawingTokenStartId; In case ownerOfrequest.currentChosenToken...

Use of resignOwnership can lead to stuck NFT in contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Contract OwnableUpgradeable has a resignOwnership function that, if called, can potentially cause the loss of the NFT after a draw has been started. Proof of Concept These are the steps/conditions that make this issue happen: When the owner calls...

Owner can potentially prevent winner from claiming by starting draw after recover timelock and then calling lastResortTimelockOwnerClaimNFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner can call startDraw at any time, including after the recoverTimelock has expired, which means the owner can call lastResortTimelockOwnerClaimNFT and potentially reclaim the NFT immediately after the draw completes if they do not want the winner ...

Compromised or malicious owner of GovNFT contract can call _bridgeMint function on Chain A to block a Governance NFT's holder from bridging such NFT from Chain B to Chain A

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact After a Governance NFT is minted and transferred to a user on Chain A, this user can bridge it to Chain B. Afterwards, because this NFT is already burned on Chain A, the owner of the GovNFT contract, who can possibly become compromised or malicious, can...

winnerClaimNFT() does not check if recipient can receive ERC721

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In src\VRFNFTRandomDraw.sol winnerClaimNFT, you should use safeTransferFrom to protect against the case that the recipient cannot receive the ERC721 tokens, and thus will lose the tokens. This is more-so the case when we expect that normal users will be...

Unreleased locks cause the reward distribution to be flawed in BondNFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact After a lock has expired, it doesn't get any rewards distributed to it. But, unreleased locks cause other existing bonds to not receive the full amount of tokens either. The issue is that as long as the bond is not released, the totalShares value isn't...

Transfering GovNFT does not update mapping userDebt

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Because of not updating the mapping userDebt for receiver userDebtfor on the transfer of GovNFT token, the receiver may be harmed, because of not getting collected fees. Proof of Concept Function transfer... is not updated for userDebtfor, here. Tools Us...

[NAZ-H1] Reentrancy From Use of _safeMint()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The mint function is used to mint a new position NFT and is only callable by minter. This function uses safeMint to mint these position NFTs which has been known in the past to have Reentrancy issues. Proof of Concept The dangers of surprising code by...

Lack of access control

Lines of code Vulnerability details The 'createReferralCode' function in the 'Referrals' contract allows any address to create a referral code. This could potentially lead to spam or misuse of the system. Impact If an attacker is able to create a large number of referral codes, they could...

Lack of validation on price feeds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Lack of validation on Chainlink price feeds may result in incorrectly functioning or non-functioning protocol. For example: during high volatility a price feed may be suspended or become stale; on L2 networks the sequencer might be down on L2 networks th...

Draw organizer can rig the draw to favor certain participants such as their own account.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In RandomDraw, the host initiates a draw using startDraw or redraw if the redraw draw expiry has passed. Actual use of Chainlink oracle is done in requestRoll: request.currentChainlinkRequestId = coordinator.requestRandomWords keyHash:...

Chainlink price feed is not sufficiently validated and can return stale price

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As mentioned by , "Prices provided by the oracle network are also compared to Chainlink's public price feeds for additional security. If prices have more than a 2% difference the transaction is reverted." The Chainlink price verification logic in the...

Error when handling deposit in the addToPosition function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the function addToPosition from the Trading contract the amount of open fees are handled using the handleOpenFees function but when calling the handleDeposit function the wrong margin is passed, in fact the handleDeposit function gets addMargin - fee...

Functions of Trading contract can be reentered by Position.sol#mint

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Both the contracts of Position and Trading may not work correctly. Proof of Concept The Position.solmint calls safeMint will trigger a checkOnERC721Received callback, which can be used to reenter. Crackers can use this vulnerability to attack the protoco...

Unprotected contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call makeNewDraw and become admin. src/VRFNFTRandomDrawFactory.sol function makeNewDrawIVRFNFTRandomDraw.Settings memory settings external returns address address admin = msg.sender; // Clone the contract address newDrawing =...

The way the winner claiming NFT is vulnerable to flashloan attack.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The way the winner claiming NFT is vulnerable to flashloan attack. Proof of Concept This kind of attack is similar to ApeCoin Airdrop attack. To determine who is winng the current drawing, there is a hashUserWon function: function hasUserWonaddress user...

Miners Can Re-Roll the VRF Output to Game the Protocol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Miners are able to rewrite a chain's history if they dislike the VRF output used by the protocol. Consider the following example: A miner or well-funded user is participating in the PoolTogether protocol. A VRF request is made and fulfilled in the same...

Unchecked setters

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Incorrect data: If the 'referred' or 'protocol' variables are set to incorrect values, it could result in incorrect or unexpected behavior in the contract. Manipulation: Malicious actors could potentially exploit this vulnerability to manipulate the syst...

Malicious ChainLink's VRF manager can decide to not whitelist VRFNFTRandomDraw or brick ongoing raffles

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ChainLinks VRF manager has priviledged position, as all VRFNFTRandomDraw instances share the same VRFCoordinatorV2 address, and have to be whitelisted in order to be able to send requestRandomWords function. There is centralization risk in this case, tha...

The NFT can be transferred to the owner immediately after startDraw()

Lines of code Vulnerability details lastResortTimelockOwnerClaimNFT as the name says is used in case the winning user doesn't retrieve the won NFT token and in such case the owner can rescue the NFT from the contract. The mentioned function can be only called after a certain period is passed: if...

Prize token can overlap with drawingToken and prize tokens from other draws.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Creators can create multiple draws with the same prize, but only the first draw to call startDraw will have the prize. This can trick users into entering raffle pools that does not have a prize. Furthermore, the prize token can also be one of the tokens ...

recoverTimelock can have a value shorter than the winner's deadline to claim

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The value of recoverTimelock is checked to be greater than a week and less than a year, but it should never be allowed to be shorter than block.timestamp + settings.drawBufferTime, which is the time given to the winner to claim the NFT. Otherwise it coul...