LPDA price is not calculated correctly such that it won't end at the final price as expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact LPDA price is not calculated correctly such that it won't end at the final price as expected Proof of Concept function getPrice public view returns uint256 Sale memory temp = sale; uint256 start, uint256 end = temp.startTime, temp.endTime; if...

Ether can be lost in LPDA contract if sale.dropPerSecond is set improperly

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function createLPDASale requires only sale.dropPerSecond 0 but if sale.dropPerSecond sale.startPrice / sale.endTime - sale.startTime function getPrice will revert except the case when all editions are sold before reaching negative price. Therefore, the b...

Price can deviate by much more than maxDeviationRate

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description NFTFloorOracle retrieves ERC721 prices for ParaSpace. maxPriceDeviation is a configurable parameter, which limits the change percentage from current price to a new feed update. function checkValidityaddress asset, uint256 twap internal view returns...

MintableIncentivizedERC721 and NToken do not comply with ERC721, breaking composability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description MintableIncentivizedERC721 implements supportsInterface as below: / @dev See IERC165-supportsInterface. / function supportsInterfacebytes4 interfaceId external view virtual overrideIERC165 returns bool return interfaceId ==...

In Escher721Factory.createContract any address can be provided as _uri for cloning

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Escher721Factory.createContract function accepts any address as the uri parameter. This parameter is used to clone the uri contract, the address of the new clone is then passed to the Escher721.initialize function. The contract should verify the...

MintableIncentivizedERC721 incorrectly implements safe transfers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact MintableIncentivizedERC721 incorrectly implements safeTransfer and safeTransferFrom by simply replicating the unsafe transfer/transferFrom function. Raising as medium because as a consequence of this, these ERC721 tokens may end up locked in contracts th...

If very few NFTs have been sold saleReceiver will have to buy all remaining NFT to retrieve the contract funds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If very few NFTs have been sold saleReceiver will have to buy all remaining NFTs if he want to get the funds that he obtained during the mint period. Fortunately, It is still possible to mint NFT after temp.endTime because the following check is not done...

double user token spending in function executeBuyWithCredit() contract transfer user wETH fund for wETH orders even when user send payment as ETH to contract and contract converted it to wETH (_depositETH() and _delegateToPool() takes user funds when user sends ETH and tries to buy WETH order)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when user wants to buy NFT tokens with wETH asset, and he/she sent ETH to executeBuyWithCredit or executeBatchBuyWithCredit, code would take user tokens two times, one as ETH token in depositETH and one as wETH tokens in delegateToPool so users would pay...

The LPDA will fail, because the Arithmetic underflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The LPDA will fail to buy mint new NFTs even if block.timestamp = temp.startTime , block.timestamp = temp.endTime and newId sale.dropPerSecond sale.endTime - sale.startTime, "INVALID DROP PER SECOND"; --- The text was updated successfully, but th...

Decimals of the oracle is not checked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Decimals of the Chainlink oracle is not checked, it is assumed to have the same unit as BASECURRENCYUNIT but it might not always be the case. If the oracle use a different number of decimals all the price will be wrong by magnitudes. Proof of Concept...

suppliers funds loss because attacker can transfer his collateralized tokens when health factor is below liquidation threshold by reentrancy attack during executeLiquidateERC20() logic and transferring collateralize

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function executeLiquidateERC20 is for liquidating a position if its Health Factor drops below 1. The caller liquidator covers liquidationAmount amount of debt of the user getting liquidated, and receives a proportional amount of the collateralAsset plus ...

NFTs mintable after Auction deadline expires

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buy function on the LPDA.sol contract is not validating if the auction is still running, allowing a purchase to be made after the stipulated time. The endtime variable used to store the end date of the auction is not used at any point to validate...

Attacker can manipulate low TVL Uniswap V3 pool to borrow and swap to make Lending Pool in loss.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Paraspace protocol, any Uniswap V3 position that are consist of ERC20 tokens that Paraspace support can be used as collateral to borrow funds from Paraspace pool. The value of the Uniswap V3 position will be sum of value of ERC20 tokens in it. functio...

Wrong logic in function _removeFeeder() cause feeders unable to be removed.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In NFTFloorPrice, there are multiple components to allow easy adding/removing keepers address public feeders - List of all keepers' address mappingaddress = FeederPositionindex, register private feederPositionMap When adding new keeper, new keeper addres...

Router.exactInputInternal doesn't check that swapped amount is same as amountIn provided by user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Router.exactInputInternal doesn't check that swapped amount is same as amountIn provided by user. In case if it's not, then exact function doesn't do what it should. It doesn't trade exact amount of tokens. Proof of Concept If user calls...

The Ether for an LPDA mint sale can be locked in the LPDA contract indefinitely

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact After a mint sale using LPDA, all the Ether can be locked in the LPDA contract indefinitely. Proof of Concept In the src/minters/ contracts, the .transfer function is used for sending Ether. It is used for sending fees to the feeReceiver, and in the...

Unsafe casting from uint256 to uint8 cause wrong index of asset and feeder in NFTFloorOracle

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In NFTFloorPrice, it has a set of feeders and a set of assets. Feeders will set price for assets. Of coursers, with the growing NFT space, number of assets collection could be much more than 256 and because Paraspace uses median price from keepers so...

LPDA sales can potentially have buying function reverting indefinately due to negative price

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact While i'm assuming there are checks for this on UI or off-chain, this wasn't mentioned in the docs or the comments, so its worth flagging and possibly implementating the mitigation step as a precaution since it is also cheap on gas. The price can...

Denial of Service at the LPDA.sol contract due to not be capable of minting an id already minted.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The ether earned by the creator and the fees for the platform can get frozen. Proof of Concept The only way the creator can get out the ether earned by the sale and also the platform to get the feest is by the next code snippet from the buy funtion at th...

THE FUNCTION LOGIC OF _REMOVEFEEDER() IS FLAWED

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When the admin calls removeFeeder, it will internally call removeFeeder that will have the feeder removed from feeders before getting its UPDATEROLE revoked. In the midst of doing this, the protocol forgets to update index of feederPositionMap belonging ...

NFTFloorOracle price feeders can be removed by anyone

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The nfts price feeders in the NFTFloorOracle contract should be added or removed only by the admin but because the removeFeeder function is missing the onlyRoleDEFAULTADMINROLE modifier any user can remove a feeder, this could impact the whole protocol i...

Actor can input malicious data in the swap function inputs

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function swap has a data input parameter, which can be defined by the caller. Any user could therefore define a token address that they will send. By doing so user could create their own token and send it instead of tokenA and receive tokenB for free. By...

Anyone can call addLiquidity function and be the router

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call addLiquidity, meaning that when IAddLiquidityCallbackmsg.sender.addLiquidityCallbacktokenAAmount, tokenBAmount, data; is called, the msg.sender can be a contract that a malicious user has deployed and has a addLiquidityCallbacktokenAAmoun...

Actor can send an arbitrary token when adding liquidity

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call addLiquidity directly and can input tokenId, params and data. The data inputs are never checked, so the user can send anything in there. Since the erc20 tokens routed are defined in the data parameter, user could send any token. Since the...

Upgraded Q -> H from #439 [1670433195074]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 439 as H risk. The relevant finding follows: L02 - close should not be able to close a specific id credit line As per the docs: Can a Borrower chose to repay any debt in any order? No. The app automatically selects which credit line can be repaid using a...

Upgraded Q -> M from #454 [1670445333683]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 454 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L‑01 Don't use payable.transfer/payable.send The use of payable.transfer is heavily frowned upon because it can lead to the locking of funds. The transfer call requires that the recipient is either an EOA account, or...

Upgraded Q -> M from #508 [1670444214372]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 508 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 508 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from #366 [1670366311052]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 366 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 5. Cannot cancel mutual consent Mutual consent works by using two TXs with the same msg.data. However, when first one call, there is no way to cancel it. First caller might send wrong msg.data or later caller change...

Upgraded Q -> M from #366 [1670366212013]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 366 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 1. Not support fee-on-transfer tokens Every tokens of credit line will be transferred from lender to LineOfCredit first, then to borrower later. These 2-transfer steps will make the tax for some fee-on-transfer token...

Upgraded Q -> M from #35 [1670345543949]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 35 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: No. 2 Any smart contract that uses transfer or send is taking a hard dependency on gas costs by forwarding a fixed amount of gas: 2300. If gas costs are subject to change, then smart contracts can’t depend on any...

Payable functions do not refund excess and locks in

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact All payable functions addCredit, increaseCredit, depositAndClose, depositAndRepay, closehttps://github.com/debtdao/Line-of-Credit/blob/698...

Upgraded Q -> M from #76 [1670347574630]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 76 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L02 address.callvalue:x should be used instead of payable.transfer Impact The use of payable.transfer is heavily frowned upon because it can lead to the locking of funds. The transfer call requires that the recipient...

Possible DoS On executeCalls() function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract can be in a state of DoS as the function executeCalls would consume all the gas as there is no upper limit on the number of calls that can be inside the array calls. Proof of Concept In the function here it perform a for loop and loops throu...

Upgraded Q -> M from #400 [1670236164031]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 400 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L04 - LiquidStakingManager.dao can rug node operators with executeAsSmartWallet daoCommissionPercentage is used to calculate the portion of node operator network rewards that are sent to dao, when a node runner is...

Relayer/executor-already-set Error in CrossChainRelayerArbitrum Contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The setExecutor function in the CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract improperly reverts when the executor variable has already been set. Impact This bug could prevent the CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract from properly setting the executor variable,...

Incorrect behavior in CrossChainExecutorPolygon contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description: We have discovered an issue with the CrossChainExecutorPolygon contract. When a message with a nonce that has already been executed is received, the contract does not prevent the message from being processed or display an error message. This issue...

setRelayer function not checking for null relayer address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary When calling the setRelayer function with a null relayer address, the function does not check for this and allows the address to be set. This issue can cause the contract to fail when calling the executeCalls function and potentially cause loss of funds...

Upgraded Q -> M from #251 [1670231833702]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 251 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: AutoPxGlp.setPlatform and AutoPxGmx.setPlatform break the vaults functionalities. Looking at AutoPxGlp.setPlatform: this admin setter allows the owner to change the pirexGmx address in AutoPxGlp. The issue is that it...

Incorrect use of AddressAliasHelper.applyL1ToL2Alias() in _isAuthorized()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary In the isAuthorized function, the require statement checks if the msg.sender is equal to the result of calling AddressAliasHelper.applyL1ToL2Alias with relayer as the argument. However, this is incorrect, as AddressAliasHelper.applyL1ToL2Alias is intend...

CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract gas limit bug

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract uses the maxSubmissionCost parameter to determine if the gasLimit provided to the processCalls function is greater than the maxGasLimit. This is incorrect because maxSubmissionCost should not be used to determine t...

Cross-chain request does not have expiration time

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Cross-chain request does not have expiration time Proof of Concept In the current implementation, a caller in source chain can perform a relayer call to starts a cross-chain request. But it is not clearly when the executor will be executing the...

Incorrect _isAuthorized function logic

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The isAuthorized function in the CrossChainExecutorOptimism contract compares the message sender address to the address of the crossDomainMessenger contract, but it should be comparing the xDomainMessageSender value returned by the crossDomainMessenger...

Missing msg.value when executing the cross-chain request

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the cross-chain request will not support smart contract that requires ETH payment in destination chain on execution side. Proof of Concept When a user relayers call and performs a cross-chain request, the executor needs to execute the request in the...

relayCalls won't work for expensive operations

Lines of code Vulnerability details relayCalls won't work for expensive operations Vulnerability Details With maxGasLimit assigned to more than typeuint32.max and relayCalls being called with gasLimit equal or greater than typeuint32.max + 1, it will revert because of the overflow at casting. Thi...

CrossChainExecutor contracts do not update the necessary states for failing transactions.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CrossChainExecutorArbitrum and CrossChainExecutorOptimism contracts both use CallLib library to invoke Calls on external contract. As per the CallLib library implementation, any failing Call results in the entire transaction getting reverted. The...

Upgraded Q -> M from #316 [1670230229509]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 316 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: compound in AutoPxGmx can be called by anyone and can be sandwiched if a poorly chosen amountOutMinimum is used. The idea is to call the function often by adding an incentive to the caller. There is a problematic...

Nonce not properly checked in CrossChainExecutorArbitrum contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The CrossChainExecutorArbitrum contract does not properly check the nonce before executing calls. This allows a potential attacker to replay a batch of calls that have already been executed. Impact If a batch of calls is replayed, it could result in...

CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract: GasLimitTooHigh revert error not caught

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The relayCalls function in the CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract reverts when the gasLimit parameter is greater than the maxGasLimit, but it does not have a catch block to handle the error. As a result, the transaction will fail without providing any...

Current implementation may be vulnerable to griefing attacks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact EIP 5164 states that: CrossChainExecutors SHOULD revert with a CallFailure error if a call fails. The current implementation of EIP-5164 makes the assumption CallLib.solL61-L72 that all call data are legitimately crafted. For context-agnostic protocols,...

Upgraded Q -> M from #400 [1670236078897]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 400 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L03 - LiquidStakingManager.dao can rug node operators with executeAsSmartWallet 202: function executeAsSmartWallet 203: address nodeRunner, 204: address to, 205: bytes calldata data, 206: uint256 value 207: external...