Possible sandwhich attack whenever a user with a surplus of allowance calls market.buy().

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Because the exact amount of allowance a user needs to mint his desired amount of shares isnt always a round number as shown via the market.getBuyPriceid, amount;. There could be users who might trust the contract blind & approve their entire balance in...

initialization of amount without permission

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact if users want to pass the input value as 0 which user can pass because there is no require checks for that. in line number 79 amount = maximumWithdrawable this override the amount variable and make it equals to uint256 maximumWithdrawable =...

there's missing check for _metadataURI in createNewShare

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Proof of Concept function createNewShare string memory shareName, address bondingCurve, string memory metadataURI external onlyShareCreator returns uint256 id requirewhitelistedBondingCurvesbondingCurve...

Price can be easily inflated/deflated by large depositors in the Market contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can manipulate/inflate market prices by donating/buying large amounts of tokens which can negatively impact subsequent transactions. For example, an attacker who executes a large buy order can significantly increase the price of shares, causi...

Fee for minting the Market Nft token can be manipulated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Fee of minting the Market's NFT is calculated based on total share count tokenCount. Such approach opens a way to collect big fees for fee recipients by deliberately stacking share tokens. address bondingCurve = shareDataid.bondingCurve; uint256...

Pricing inconsistencies introduced via rounding/truncation errors

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Calculating share/token prices via bonding curves which involve mathematical operations like logs and divisions can introduce small rounding errors each time. Over many transactions, these errors could accumulate and lead to pricing inconsistencies that...

Lost fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Buyers do not get any split of the fees. It is instead to be distributed to holders. But holder splits on successive buys are partially lost to the contract and cannot be recovered. Proof of concept The buyer's rewardsLastClaimedValueidmsg.sender is...

Potential Race Condition in Rewards Calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If exploited, this race condition could allow an attacker to manipulate rewards in transactions involving the buy, sell, mintNFT, or burnNFT functions. The attacker may gain an advantage in claiming rewards before the rewards calculation is updated. Proo...

Deposit into strategy could be blocked by limits in EigenLayer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The implementation of depositAssetIntoStrategy deposits the entire balance of the node delegator which could conflict with the max limits per deposit defined in EigenLayer. Impact NodeDelegator are responsible for managing assets in EigenLayer. The...

The rsETH price can be manipulated easily when the deposit is low

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The rsETH price can be manipulated easily when the deposit is low, since the price is relies on the contracts' balance. Proof of Concept The rsETH's price is calculated by $\fractotalassetvaluetotalsupply$, and when supply is zero, the price will be 1...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #481 [1700080840600]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 481 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: A blocked/sanctioned account can still received interest --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

No slippage and / or deadline protection in depositAsset()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The function depositAsset allows a user to deposit a specific amount of any supported token and, in return, receive a specific amount of rsETH. This amount of rsETH is calculated by dividing the total value of deposited assets in ETH by the pri...

Missing pause check in transferAssetToNodeDelegator()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The function transferAssetToNodeDelegator present in the LRTDepositPool contact ignores the contract's pause state. Impact The LRTDepositPool contract contains a functionality to pause the contract in case of an emergency. 208: function pause external...

getRSETHPrice formula is wrong

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact While auditing the getRSETHPrice function i've indicated a dynamic but non-linear relationship between the supply of the RSETH token and its price.An increase in RSETH supply is associated with an increase in the price of RSETH. Proof of Concept Let's...

Intrinsic arbitrage between assets due to price feed deviation threshold

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Withdrawals have not yet been implemented but I assume it will be implemented in the usual way such that the fraction of total supply of rsETH a user redeems gives him an equal fraction of total assets held, i.e. received = sharesToRedeem totalAssets /...

The initial deposit of an asset will always fail due to the fact that getTotalAssetDeposits() returns 0.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The LRTDepositPooldepositAsset function is employed for users to deposit supported assets. This function relies on LRTDepositPoolgetTotalAssetDeposits to determine the amount of rsETH to be minted. However, the absence of initial deposits in the...

DepositPool is susceptible to the inflation attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The DepositPool contract is susceptible to the Inflation Attack, in which the first depositor can be front-runned by an attacker to steal their deposit. Impact The DepositPool pool contract acts mainly as a vault: accounts deposit LST assets and get bac...

The staker could silently lose all their previously deposited assets when revert TokenTransferFailed() is called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The staker could silently lose all their deposited assets in the NodeDelegator.sol function when they time to transfer their assets. This could happen when the staker owns assets in the Eigen but it is not enough to be transferred when the calculated...

rsETH can return incorrect price because of future EigenLayer strategies

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact How currently rsETH price is calculated? totalEthLocked is divided by rsETH supply. How totalEthLocked is calculated? It sums 3 amounts per every asset: 1 balance of LRTDepositPool.sol, 2 balance of all node delegators, 3 already deposited amount of asse...

Precision loss in getRsETHAmountToMint

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact users may lose their assets Proof of Concept The price of rsETH increases against ETH price, this leads to precision loss in getRsETHAmountToMint. Consider a scenario that one rsETH worth 10 ETH; now if a user tries to deposit 9 ETH he losses assets due ...

First depositor will get twice more minted token for the same amount deposited

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The initial depositor stands to gain an unfair amount of RSETH tokens compared to later depositors, as a result of the fixed exchange rate of 1 ether when no RSETH supply exists i.e., no minted tokens are available. Consequently, the first deposit will...

Deriving the price with balanceOf() is dangerous

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Deriving the price with balanceOf is dangerous as it can easily be manipulated by direct transfers. Proof of Concept In the getAssetDistributionData function, the asset lying in the LRTDepositPool is retrieved using balanceOfaddressthis:...

getAssetPrice in ChainlinkPriceOracle.sol can return stale price.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary On chainlink oracle for every pair of tokens price updating time is different. After that particular time the price will be updated. getAssetPrice function is not checking when the last time the price was updated. So it may return stale price . So the...

Missing pause checks in LRTOracle

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The LRTOracle oracle provides functionality to pause the contract but no restrictions are applied when the contract is in a paused state. Impact Similar to the other contracts in the protocol, the LRTOracle contract offers pausing functionality: 101: //...

Max deposit limit on assets per deposit on strategy on EigenLayer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Each strategy on EigenLayer has a maxPerDeposit it validates all individual deposits into the concerned strategy against. This is inclusive of the maxTotalDeposits against a strategy. These two upper limits are validated against deposits to the strategy,...

Use contracts-upgradeable instead of contract variants of OpenZeppelin

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact OpenZeppelin’s contracts variants when used with upgradeability will result in negative impact on the overall contract functionality. Check this OpenZeppelin warning about mixing contract variants with upgradeable-contract. Proof of Concept Upgradeable...

getRSETHPrice() of LRTOracle.sol will return 0 totalETHInPool is less than rsEthSupply.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary If totalETHInPool is less than rsEthSupply then getRSETHPrice will return 0 as price of rsEth in Eth. It will result in reverting when depositAsset of LRTDepositPool.sol is called. Because getRsETHAmountToMint will revert when rsEth price is 0 and it is...

First deposit of 1 Wei will block further rsETH minting

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the initial deposit in the DepositPool is 1 wei of any supported token rETH, cbETH, or stETH, 1 wei of rsETH will be minted for the first depositor. However, subsequent rsETH minting will be prevented because the rsethAmountToMint will always round do...

No way to withdraw from the strategy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact NodeDelegator does not have any functions to withdraw the underlying from the strategy. It does have a function to transfer ERC-20 tokens to the LRTDepositPool, assuming the eigen layer strategy mints ERC20 tokens to represent the share of invested funds...

depositAsset() does not check for slippage

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Prices are fetched from Chainlink but it is possible that the prices are stale due to to the fact that it is not checking for the freshness of the price or chainlink could be experiencing a crash event where it would return prices between a minimum and...

Decimal Precision Issue in Price Calculations

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The getRSETHPrice function perform calculations like multiplying prices by amounts without considering the token decimals. This can cause errors to accumulate over multiple calculations. Ignoring token decimals when performing price calculations can caus...

The deposited amount is included in how rsEthAmountToMint is calculated and it should not. Second depositors get less rsETH shares than deserved.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact All deposits, starting with the second one, incur a loss in the received rsETH amount. Proof of Concept LRTDepositPool::depositAsset helps users to stake LST in exchange for rsETH shares. First the LST is transferedFrom user to depositPool and rsETH is...

No slippage control on deposit of LRTDepositPool.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no slippage control on depositAsset of LRTDepositPool, which expose user to sandwich attack. Proof of Concept Any deposit can be sandwiched in LRTDepositPool, especially when the pool is not balanced. Exploit Scenario: Bob, a normal user, calls...

User can not receive own assets back

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The user has the opportunity to deposit tokens, but does not have the opportunity to withdraw them back. Consequently, his tokens will be locked in the contract and he will not be able to take them back. Yes, the contract is upgradable - but this does no...

Missing sanity checks in Chainlink response

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary Chainlink responses from price feeds are being used without any sanity checks. Impact The ChainlinkPriceOracle contract is used to interface with the Chainlink price feeds for the different LST assets in scope in the protocol. The current implementation...

Saving balance of token in variable can lead to wrong amount transfer or failure

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Saving contract balance into variable will result in wrong price being transferred using the depositIntoStrategy method which will cause the transfer to fail if balance is less than transferred and wrong amount transferred if amount increases. Proof of...

ChainLink's latestAnswer is deprecated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Chainlink's documentation indicates that the latestAnswer function is deprecated. This function lacks reversion if no answer is obtained, instead returning 0. Additionally, the reported latestAnswer varies with 18 decimals for some token quotes and 8...

Missing check on deposited amount

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact depositAsset transfers tokens from the sender without checking that the amount was indeed received. If the protocol were to accept other tokens than stETH, rETH, and cbETH, there is a possibility that some of the newly accepted tokens have custom ERC20...

Attacker can Grief The Call to depositAsset Making It Impossible For The Victim To Deposit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The attacker can grief the victim , making him unable to deposit asset into the pool. Proof of Concept The attack flow is as follows - Alice decides to deposit assets into the LRTDepositPool.sol , she calls depositPool here At L152 the function makes the...

Users could game oracle price deviation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary Prices returned from Chainlink oracles have different conditions to update the reported values, which can be abused by Impact Prices for the different LST assets supported in the Kelp protocol are obtained from a Chainlink oracle. The data feeds for eac...

Malicious first depositor can steal all funds from all future depositors

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Due to a miscalculation in LRTOraclegetRSETHPrice, users who call LRTDepositPooldepositAsset when rsETH.totalSupply is non-zero will receive fewer rsETH tokens than they should due to a rounding error. This can be exploited by a malicious first depositor...

Precision loss in getRSETHPrice

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Precision loss and return zero price by Oracle Proof of Concept Since the value of staked ether increases, the price of RSETH goes above ETH price and leads to a precision loss in the getRSETHPrice function of the oracle, and RSETH price becomes zero...

Missing slippage check in deposit function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary Users depositing in the protocol have no control over the amount of RSETH minted in return for their deposit. Impact The depositAsset function present in the LRTDepositPool contract allows users to deposit any of the supported assets into the protocol i...

latestRoundData recommendation does not have consideration for stale price

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The issue is highlighted in the bot L-2 finding but fail to highlight the importance for checking stale price. The ChainlinkPriceOracle when calls out to a Chainlink oracle receiving using the recommended latestRoundData it can get stale price, if there ...

Potential arbitrage opportunity

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact According to the logic of the protocol , minted tokens can be swapped on AMMs. This is a serious problem as prices on AMMs follow a bonding curve that are independent from the Chainlink pricing feed. This will create arbitrage opportunities for hackers t...

Mint amount calculation in deposit is incorrect

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The calculation in the deposit function of the DepositPool contract is flawed as it factors the deposited amount into the RSETH price to calculate the amount to mint. Impact When a user deposits in the DepositPool contract, the amount of RSETH to mint i...

Fractional shares are not respected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact getRSETHPrice will return the rate at which RSETH are being minted as to maintain each user stake in balance. Goal is to maintained fractional shares. However, since users are expected to swap on external AMMs, the fractional share will not be kept as AM...

Failure to Initialize Default Price Feeds Can Cause Unexpected Reverts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The ChainlinkPriceOracle contract does not initialize default price feed mappings for supported assets. This means calling the getAssetPrice function before explicitly setting a feed will result in a revert instead of a defined failure response. Details:...

Too small deposits will result in no rsEth mint for the

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User will get nothing if the deposit amount is too small . Proof of Concept The getRsETHAmountToMint is for getting the conversion rate of asset to rsEth . /// @return rsethAmountToMint Amount of rseth to mint function getRsETHAmountToMint address asset,...

Biased rsETH price calculation in depositAsset results in lesser rsETH minted to user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The LRTDepositPool acts as a simplified vault allowing restakers to transfer their liquid staked tokens and receive rsETH tokens based on the current rsETH exchange rate. rsETH are minted to user by interacting with depositAsset function of LRTDepositPoo...