Frontrunning initial liquidity adding

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Creation of the pair does not add initial liquidity which leads to situation where attacker can front-run creator and execute sandwich attack against the creator. Exploitation Scenario: 1. Alice creates pair and wants to add liquidity 2. Bob front-runs...

there is no max value for min lp in add function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact breaking logic, ... Proof of Concept there is no check Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps ad checks to ensure min lp amt is have max --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: 👎 2 Shungy and soosh1337 reacted with thum...

Incorrect rounding in buyQuote

Lines of code Vulnerability details The function buyQuote present in the Pair contract is used to calculate the amount of base tokens required to buy a given amount of fractional tokens. function buyQuoteuint256 outputAmount public view returns uint256 return outputAmount 1000 baseTokenReserves /...

Only one GroupBuy can ever use USDT or similar tokens with front-running approval protections

Lines of code Vulnerability details Calling approve without first calling approve0 if the current approval is non-zero will revert with some tokens, such as Tether USDT. While Tether is known to do this, it applies to other tokens as well, which are trying to protect against this attack vector...

Upgraded Q -> M from #163 [1671458931869]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 163 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: TOKEN TRANSFERS DO NOT VERIFY THAT THE TOKENS WERE SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFERRED Some tokens like zrx do not revert the transaction when the transfer/transferfrom fails and return false, which requires us to check the...

Bids are wrongly ordered when prices and quantities are equal.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In GroupBuy, when total amount of Raes is filled up with purchases, users start competing with higher price offers. Their bids are laid out in a min priority queue structure implemented in MinPriorityQueue.sol. The docs clearly state that when two...

Attacker can steal the amount collected so far in the GroupBuy for NFT purchase.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description purchase in GroupBuy.sol executes the purchase call for the group. After safety checks, the NFT is bought with market's execute function. Supposedly it deploys a vault which owns the NFT. The code makes sure the vault is the new owner of the NFT and...

Upgraded Q -> M from #201 [1671458492331]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 201 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Deposit function is not compatible with deflationary token The actual deposited amount might be lower than the specified depositAmount of the function parameter. This would lead to wrong interest rate calculations on...

Pair.sol contract is susceptible to having its pricing curve (x*y = k) manipulated through a 3rd party contract calling selfdestruct() and forwarding ether.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a pair is denominated in ether, a third party contract can forward ether to the contract using the selfdestruct function passing the pair's address. The impact of this is that the pair will allow its market making curve to be manipulated. Among other...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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 //...

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...

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...

ERC20 approvals may need to be set to 0 beforehand

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are some instances where there is an ERC20 approval for a max uint256 amount. ERC20 tokens such as USDT require the address allowance to be set to 0 beforehand, so this would cause reverts for those tokens. Proof of Concept -Token such as USDT gets...

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...

reentrancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If an attacker were able to successfully exploit a reentrancy vulnerability in this contract, they could potentially cause the contract to enter an infinite loop, consuming all available gas and rendering it unusable. This could result in financial losse...

[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...

Function fulfillRandomWords in VRFNFTRandomDraw contract must not revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details The VRFNFTRandomDraw contract implements the Chainlink VFR feature to pull random data to select the raffle winner. As per their security guidelines the implementation of the fulfillRandomWords function must not revert. Impact If the fulfillRandomWords function...

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...

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...

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...

Extending period in Lock contract will block user funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Extending lock will block users' funds. Contract: Lock.sol Proof of Concept Locking tokens with function lock... will update mapping mapping totalLocked for given asset with value of amount, here: totalLockedasset += amount. However, when extending lock...

Lack of Input Validation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Without proper input validation, it is possible for attackers to pass malicious input to the contract, potentially causing unintended behavior or even allowing the attacker to exploit the contract. Proof of Concept an attacker could pass a negative value...

Wrong position size calculation in TradingLibrary.pnl()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users will pay less closing fees than they should when they have a profitable short position. Also, they will pay more fees when they have a lost short position. Proof of Concept TradingLibrary.pnl calculates the new position size like below. function...

Wrong deposit amount in Trading.addToPosition()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users should deposit a full amount of addMargin but it deducts fee now. As a result, users will pay less funds than they should. Proof of Concept In addToPosition, users deposits addMargin - fee after the fee calculation. File:...

Governance NFT holder, whose NFT was minted before Trading._handleOpenFees function is called, can lose deserved rewards after Trading._handleOpenFees function is called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Calling the following Trading.handleOpenFees function does not approve the GovNFT contract for spending any of the Trading contract's tigAsset balance, which is unlike calling the Trading.handleCloseFees function below that executes...

Draw admin/owner can rug the winner after recoverTimelock expires.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The admin/owner of VRFNFTRandomDraw can wait for recoverTimelock to expire before making the draw. This way he can use lastResortTimelockOwnerClaimNFT to take back the reward NFT from the contract without any time to allow for the winner to claim. He cou...

The parameters in the setting of the draw are in consistent

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When initializing a draw, parameters in settings can be easily set to inconsistent, which can lead to the winner cannot claim the NFT even before reaching the drawBufferTime – time until a re-drawing can occur if the selected user cannot or does not clai...

Weak PRNG

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Weak PRNG due to a modulo on block.timestamp, now or blockhash. These can be influenced by miners to some extent so they should be avoided. src/VRFNFTRandomDraw.sol if settings.recoverTimelock block.timestamp + MONTHINSECONDS 12 revert...

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...

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 =...

Attackers can obtain rewards through the NFT of the flash loan winning ID

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract judges whether the user has won a prize, but only judges whether the owner of the nft with the specified ID is equal to the user's address user == IERC721EnumerableUpgradeablesettings.drawingToken.ownerOf request.currentChosenTokenId ; But i...

Pending owner can front-run current owner when current owner wants to cancel the ownership transfer.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact OwnableUpgradable contract has been modified to transfer ownership in a two-step ownership transfer way. This introduces an issue of front-run when admin adds a pendingOwner but later on decides to cancel the ownership transfer. Pending owner can become...

owner can withdraw the NFT at any time if they wait with starting the draw until after recoverTimelock

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description When creating a random draw the owner specifices a recoverTimelock which is a last resort option to recover the raffled NFT if the draw fails. There are some validations that this is between a week and a year in the future but there's no guarantee...

Wrong calculation of MONTH_IN_SECONDS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Wrong calculation of MONTHINSECONDS : line 33 on VRFNFTRandomDraw.sol is calculating 30 weeks of 7 days instead of 30 days. 30 weeks of 7 days = 3600 24 7 30. 30 days = 3600 24 30. so and wont work properly --- The text was updated successfully, but these error...

Raffle is fair only if tokenRange is a power of 2.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Based on the contract logic, the raffle works by sampling a value $ x \in \mathbbZ | 0 \leq x \lt 2^256 $ aka uint256 from a uniform distribution provided by Chainlink VRF, then applying modulo tokenRange, generating a new value $ y \in \mathbbZ | 0 \leq...

Wrong value of MONTH_IN_SECONDS could make it impossible to recover NFT in 7 years

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Constant MONTHINSECONDS has incorrect value. Instead of 1 month, it has the value of 7 months. // @dev about 30 days in a month uint256 immutable MONTHINSECONDS = 3600 24 7 30; // @audit wrong value, could allow bufferTime and recoverTimelock become too...

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 ...

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...

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...

The transferFrom() method is used instead of safeTransferFrom(), which I assume is a gas-saving measure. I however argue that this isn’t recommended because:

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability Detail OpenZeppelin’s documentation discourages the use of transferFrom; use safeTransferFrom whenever possible The recipient could have logic in the startDraw, fwinnerClaimNFT, lastResortTimelockOwnerClaimNFT, function src/VRFNFTRandomDraw.sol-18...

integer overflow or underflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If an integer overflow or underflow occurs in the contract, it could lead to incorrect calculations and potentially unintended consequences, such as the transfer of incorrect amounts of tokens or the allocation of incorrect amounts of rewards. This could...

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...