Funds may be lost if processCalls is called from a contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In CrossChainRelayerArbitrum.processCalls, msg.sender is set as the address to receive any refund both excess fee refund and call value refund in the createRetryableTicket call. Arbitrium credits the refunded value to L2 balance, so if the user doesn't...

Potential security issues in CrossChainExecutorOptimism contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Title: Potential security issues in CrossChainExecutorOptimism contract Product: CrossChainExecutorOptimism contract Version: 0.8.16 Summary: The CrossChainExecutorOptimism contract contains several potential security issues that could allow unauthorized or...

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...

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...

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from #400 [1670235895275]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 400 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L01 - EOA restriction of wallet representative can be bypassed A node operator can call registerBLSPublicKeys to register a node runner to LSD and create a new smart wallet. The protocol only allows EOAs to be...

Replay Attack possible by processCalls function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Calls can be processed multiple times Proof of Concept The processCalls function uses the require function to check whether the nonce and calls values have been relayed, but it does not check whether the sender value is the same as the msg.sender value...

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...

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...

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...

the executor can execute fake cross-chain function call

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The caller on relayer side can be rugged if the executor call the executeCall on execution side directly to use consume the nonce and fake cross-chain function call. Proof of Concept The expected behavior is that: the relayer relays a cross-chain request...

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...

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...

ProcessedCalls Event Emission Vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The contract is vulnerable to reentrancy attacks through the ProcessedCalls event. The event is emitted with the ticketId of the newly created retryable ticket, which can be used by an attacker to reenter the contract. Impact An attacker could exploit...

Upgraded Q -> M from #402 [1670185822442]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 402 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Staked Gmx RewardTracker may retain allowances Summary: Both the configureGmxState function and the setContractContracts c, address contractAddress can be used to update the PirexGmx contract's stakedGmx storage...

Integer Overflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Potential integer overflow vulnerability in the relayCalls function. The function does not check for the maximum value of the gasLimit parameter, and if it is set to a value greater than the maxGasLimit, it will cause an integer overflow. Integer overflo...

DoS on relayCalls when the nonce variable reach type(uint256).max

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Denial of service on relayCalls functions when the nonce variable reach typeuint256.max Proof of Concept When the smart contracts start to be used, the variable in storage nonce will start to increment by 1, and since the nonce variable cannot be...

Fail to verify the result of a low level function call

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. It fails to check properly if the call is successful because: 1 It does not check the return data; 2 it does not check if the target address is a valid contract. A contract that has no code will still...

Potential reentrancy attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is a potential of reentrancy attack in executeCalls in EthereumToArbitrumExecutor.sol since CallLib is making an external call with its executeCalls and we do not know the implementation of the contract that will be called eventually. The same issu...

[ZZ-001] PARENT_CANNOT_CONTROL and CANNOT_CREATE_SUBDOMAIN fuses can be bypassed

Severity: High Status: Has been reported to and comfirmed by Jeff ENS team Report Time: 11/28/2022 12:31 AM EST Description The fuse constraints can be violated by a malicious owner of the parent node i.e., the hacker. There are two specific consequences the hacker can cause. Suppose the subnode...

Relayed calls in EthereumToArbitrumRelayer can be replayed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A relayed call can be processed multiple times allowing somebody to execute the user's call multiple times. The bridge allows arbitrary calls to contracts. Depending on the nature of the call, this could result in a loss of funds for the user. Proof of...

Upgraded Q -> M from #265 [1669939411439]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 265 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: ETH not updated in internal accounting of giant pools Giant pools have a feature of bringing ETH back to the giant pools from the vaults. The received ETH in not updated in internal accounting and therefore cannot be...

Upgraded Q -> M from #373 [1670018401792]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 373 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: N2. ETH not accumulated in previewAccumulatedETH supposed to have accumulated += ... Although it is an external view function, depending on its usages, it may present more issues to the callers. --- The text was...

Reentranxcy in executeCalls()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract first checks that the message sender is authorized and then marks the provided nonce as executed before calling the executeCalls function in CallLib. However, if CallLib.executeCalls calls back into this contract, the executeCalls function...

[ZZ-004] During the deprecation period where both .eth registrar controllers are active, a crafted hack can be launched and cause the same malicious consequences of [ZZ-001] even if [ZZ-001] is properly fixed

Severity: High Status: Has not been reported Description, Specifically, according to the documentation, there will be a deprecation period that two types of .eth registrar controllers are active. Names can be registered as normal using the current .eth registrar controller. However, the new .eth...

Upgraded Q -> M from #236 [1669938261828]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 236 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: It is possible the DAO determine the amount of commission very high for its own benefit, so setting a range for determining the commission seems logical. Especially MAX commission should be pre- defined. --- The text...

Upgraded Q -> M from #205 [1669936745167]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 205 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L01 - No check if EOARepresentative or EOARepresentativeOfNodeRunner is an EOA or a smart contract Impact A smart contract can end up being assigned as a smartWalletRepresentative. Such smart contract might not have...

Upgraded Q -> M from #121 [1669815281189]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 121 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Require - always false contracts/liquid-staking/LiquidStakingManager.sol:280 isNodeRunnerWhitelistednodeRunner comparing to itself requireisNodeRunnerWhitelistednodeRunner != isNodeRunnerWhitelistednodeRunner,...

Upgraded Q -> M from #16 [1669734774225]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 16 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: AQ6: This function provides too much power to Dao, if the dao calls the function, then he can be the node runner of each smart wallet and then call withdrawETHForKnot to drain each smart wallet. --- The text was updat...

Upgraded Q -> M from #38 [1669737057849]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 38 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 6. require check will always be false!! the require check will always be false so it the function will not do what it was designed to do and it will always revert Unnecessary update to same status...

Fuses rollover with renew

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User will not be able to change fuses even after actual expiry Proof of Concept 1. User A wraps his .eth domain test.eth using the wrapETH2LD function with fuse CANNOTBURNFUSES 2. This internally calls wrapETH2LD function with User A provided fuses 3. Th...

Incentive fund loss when calling claim() in AutoPxGlp/PxGmxRewards because it calls this.compound(,,true) which would transfer incentive to contract itself and those funds won't be calculated as rewards or fee and won't be accessible to withdraw

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function claim in PxGmxReward contract is used for claiming available pxGMX rewards of a user. but this function calls IAutoPxGlpaddressthis.compound1, 1, true; to harvest new rewards and stake them to compound rewards. but this call is external call and...

Register and assign functions need more validation due to phishing vectors.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Turnstile contract is open for phishing. Since the interaction between the contracts is in atomic construction and the calls can't be controlled at low levels, it might open ways to phishing the contracts. Let's assume that there is a contract that i...

Not checking if tokenId exist on distributeFees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Not checking if tokenId exist on distributeFees can set the msg.value to uncreated tokenId Proof of Concept For example an Owner mistakenly call distributeFee with a tokenId which doesn't exist, then the function will success, but unfortunately any user...

distributeFees did not check if tokenId exist can lead to loss of asset

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact distributeFees did not check if tokenId existed, can lead to loss of asset Proof of Concept inside Turnstile.sol file, the distributeFees function did not check if the tokenId exist or not. 148: function distributeFeesuint256 tokenId public onlyOwner...

Existing tokens can be given to other contracts when assign function is called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the Turnstile contract when the assign function is called any unregistered contract can register himself as the feeRecipient for any given token id, but in reality only the token owner should be able to assign a new smart contract as feeRecipient for...

Potential mismanaging of the access and roles

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In initiateMigration method we are setting migratedTo to an address of the potential migration contract Later on, if completeMigration is called, it basically checks if the provided oldContract is equal to migratedTo when we enter the migrateReward metho...

The existence of the tokenID is not validated in distributeFees()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Turnstile contract has distributeFees function which the Canto team/smart contract utilizes to distribute the fees to the tokenID's for the smart contract that is registered through register function. The existence of the tokenID's are checked both in...

CallEVM does not validate the existence of the address being called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Evm.go's CallEVM function performs a EVM call to a given address with an input amount. However, the existence of the address is not validated. If the call is made with an amount to a contract, where it might be deleted or non-existed, the funds will be...

Solmate saftransfer and safetransferfrom does not check the codesize of the token address, which may lead to fund loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details In PirexGmx.sol and ERC4626Vault.sol, the contract uses the solmate library which does not check the existence of code at the token address. This is a known issue when using solmate's libraries. Reference: Impact Possible loss of funds and miscalculation. Proof...

Possible double spending issue for PirexERC4626 vault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Solmate's ERC20 does not provide option to increase/decrease allowance, and only option to do so is by setting it via approve - which sets this amount directly. This poses a problem of double spending, when a user want to check current allowance, and bad...

Potential uint underflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Potential underflow if shares is greater than totalSupply Proof of Concept Tools Used Manual review Recommended Mitigation Steps Before the following line, check if totalSupply is greater or equal to shares --- The text was updated successfully, but thes...

DoS on claiming rewards in PirexRewards is possible

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The claim method in PirexRewards iterates over the rewardTokens array for a producerToken. Now this array is completely managed by the contract’s owner who can call addRewardToken which pushes a new value in that array, as many times as he...

Division by zero could cause DOS in function harvest() and claim() in PirexRewards contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When functions harvest or claim of PirexRewards are called, they will claim rewards by calling PirexGmx.claimRewards function. If there is any case that esGmx reward is existed but not base rewards or vice versa, the value returned from calculateRewards ...

The _recipient address has no limits to the amount of tokenID (NFTs) it can own

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since the recipient address has no limit to the number of tokenIds it can hold, this makes it possible for an attacker to call the register function many times with different addresses and send many tokenIds to the same recipient, which could cause a...

NameWrapper: expired names behave unwrapped

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact expired Names are supposed to be unregistered, but it behaves like unwrapped parent with CANNOTCREATESUBDOMAIN fuse can "create" again an expired name parent can ENS.setSubdomainOwner before burning CANNOTCREATESUBDOMAIN to be able to use the subdomain...

The recipient address check during handling register events will confuse users and block the users contracts registering

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The check about if the receiver account exists in the evm store doesn't make sense and will cause users to encounter a confusing exception. And the RegisterEvent function will not throw an exception to revert the tx, the source contract will be wrote in...

A malicious early user/attacker can manipulate the pxGmx's pricePerShare to take an unfair share of future user's deposits

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker/early user can deposit 1 wei in the vault and increase the price per share by sending a very high value of the underlying directly to the vault, causing next vault depositors to: not be able to deposit less than the very high share price set ...

compound could be used by uniswap stakers to maximize fees for AutoPxGmx users

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call AutoPxGmx::compound. Hence a staker in the 10000 1% fee uniswap pool can call compound with that pool and take a larger fee from AutoPxGmx users maximizing their gains and griefing users. Proof of Concept fee chooses which uniswap pool to...

Potential PirexReward's producerTokens's rewardToken unsynced with PirexGmx rewardToken can miss calculate the actual reward for user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Potential PirexReward's producerTokens's rewardToken unsynced with PirexGmx rewardToken can miss calculate the actual reward for user Proof of Concept PirexReward initialization does not include rewardToken initialization for producerTokens. Meanwhile...