overflow in buy function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the function doesn't check if the input is more the supply Proof of Concept the function doesn't have any condition check of amount Tools Used manually Recommended Mitigation Steps check the input for maximum or requirement for max supply --- The text wa...

Ownership of EscherERC721.sol contracts can be changed, thus creator roles become useless

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact creator = has a CREATORROLE in Escher.sol non-creator = doesn't have a CREATORROLE in Escher.sol Currently creating an ERC721 edition via the Escher721Factory.sol contract requires a user to have the CREATORROLE in the main Escher.sol contract. This...

UniswapV3 tokens of certain pairs will be wrongly valued, leading to liquidations.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description UniswapV3OracleWrapper is responsible for price feed of UniswapV3 NFT tokens. Its getTokenPrice is used by the health check calculation in GenericLogic. getTokenPrice gets price from the oracle and then uses it to calculate value of its liquidity...

Discrepency in the Uniswap V3 position price calculation because of decimals

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When the squared root of the Uniswap V3 position is calculated from the getOracleData function, the price may return a very high number in the case that the token1 decimals are strictly superior to the token0 decimals. See: The reason is that at the...

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...

Bad debt will likely incur when multiple NFTs are liquidated.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description getUserBalanceForERC721 in GenericLogic gets the value of a user's specific ERC721 xToken. It is later used for determining the account's health factor. In case isAtomicPrice is false such as in ape NTokens, price is calculated using: uint256...

Missing access control in NFTFloorOracle::removeFeeder

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept THe removeFeeder method is lacking onlyRoleDEFAULTADMINROLE modifier, even though the NatSpec states “Allows owner to remove feeder”. Due to this, now everyone can remove a feeder anytime. Different types of attack can be executed, one of which...

Update initializer library to prevent reentrancy during initialization

Lines of code Vulnerability details Since proxied contracts do not make use of a constructor, it's common to move constructor logic to an external initializer function, usually called initialize. It then becomes necessary to protect this initializer function so it can only be called once. The...

LPDA sale getPrice() will be broken after time because of overflow calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact LPDA sale is stand for “Last Price Dutch Auction”, which means price will drop every second from startPrice. After all NFTs are saled, it will recorded the finalPrice at the time the sale finished with the formula startPrice - dropPerSecond timeElapsed...

Compromised admin can instantly take all NFTs held in NToken contracts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description executeAirdrop is a function admin may call in order to collect airdrops for NFTs held in ParaSpace's nToken contract. function executeAirdrop address airdropContract, bytes calldata airdropParams external override onlyPoolAdmin require...

Dutch auction getPrice() formula can lead to price reaching 0 and eventually reverting and locking the function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the function getPrice the current price is calculated by taking the start price and subtracting the product of dropPersecond and time elapsed. start price - dropPreSecond timeElapsed. The issue with this is that given the right inputs for dropPerSecon...

Use of payable.transfer() may lock user funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details 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 has a payable callback, only provides 2300 gas for its operation. This means the following cases can cause the...

Buy can be executed after sale end

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In LPDA.sol buy function when all tokens are minted, the final price is set and the ether from the sale and fee is sent to the saleReceiver and feeReceiver addresses. Since there is no check to validate if sale has ended the function can be executed with...

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.sol and FixedPrice.sol will lock the funds forever

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Possibility of IDs collision The ether will be locked on FixedPrice or LPDA Proof of Concept On the same Escher721 Let’s say the first collection start from id = 0 and end on id = 10 So the next collection of the same Escher721 We can say the next part o...

Funds reserved for refunding users can be steal in LPDA sale

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact LPDA sale works like a Dutch Auction, where early buyers will get refund after the sale ended. In addition, in buy function, when last NFT is saled, it is automatically ending the LPDA sale and send payments to sale receiver, fee to fee receiver. And the...

Rewards are not accounted for properly in NTokenApeStaking contracts, limiting user's collateral.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description ApeStakingLogic.sol implements the logic for staking ape coins through the NTokenApeStaking NFT. getTokenIdStakingAmount is an important function which returns the entire stake amount mapping for a specific BAYC / MAYC NFT. function...

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...

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 ...

Oracle does not treat upward and downward price movement the same in validity checks, causing safety issues in oracle usage.

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. We can see how priceDeviation is calculated and compared to...

Malicious feeReceiver or saleReceiver can steal the user's refund ETH by calling the buy function multiple times in LPDA

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LPDA contract, the fee is transfered to feeReceiver and the totalSale to saleReceiver when newId == temp.finalId, meaning that the amount of tokens that were minted has been reached. However, the call to the internal end function only emits an eve...

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 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...

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 -> 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 -> 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 #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...

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 #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 #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 #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...

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...

Relayer/executor-already-set Revert in setExecutor()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The setExecutor function reverts if the executor variable has already been set. Impact If the executor variable has already been set and setExecutor is called again, the transaction will fail and any gas spent on the transaction will be lost...

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...

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...

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...

Potential security issues in CallLib solidity library

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description: The CallLib solidity library contains several potential security issues that could be exploited by attackers. Issue 1: The executeCalls function does not check if the sender parameter is the contract owner before allowing the calls to be executed...

CrossChainExecutorPolygon does not implement the executeCalls function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CrossChainExecutor contracts in the codebase are meant to follow the CrossChainExecutor interface as defined in EIP-5164. Each L2 network specific CrossChainExecutor contract is also expected to inherit and follow the ICrossChainExecutor interface...

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...

ExecutorAware doesn't adequately validate sender for nonce

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Contracts on the execution chain are asked to inherit from ExecutorAware.sol. This gives them the ability to check msgSender and nonce pulled from the calldata in the format encoded by the executor. While the msgSender function adequately checks that the...

CrossChainRelayerArbitrum.processCalls() can be invoked multiple times.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract once a Call has been relayed using the relayCalls function, processCalls can be invoked multiple times by anyone for the respective Call. Due to this redundant IInbox.createRetryableTicket calls are triggered and...

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...

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,...

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...

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...

ProcessedCalls event missing transaction hash

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract is missing the txHash parameter in the ProcessedCalls event. Impact The txHash is used to identify the transaction that was processed. Without this parameter, it will be impossible to know which transaction was...

Incorrect gas limit check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The relayCalls function incorrectly checks the gas limit provided in the gasLimit parameter against the maxGasLimit variable instead of checking if it is less than or equal to the msg.gas value. Impact This bug allows the caller of relayCalls to specify...

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from #38 [1670234424045]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 38 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L2. Pool selection for the compound is not restricted Compound function of AutoPxGmx contract is public and available for everyone. An attacker can create a custom pool with a higher fee value currently, on tests it...