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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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,...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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-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...

[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 #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...

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 #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 #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 #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...

Deposit can be front-runned

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The depositor who got frontrun by the attacker will lose all their funds. And all the future depositors. An attacker can front run the first user's deposit and transfer tokens to the vault directly causing all future depositors to lose all their funds...

Ownership NFT Can be Minted by Anyone

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Turnstile.sol, register is a public function callable by anyone. Any msg.sender calling this function the first time is going to bypass the modifier onlyUnregistered. As long as a non-zero recipient has been inputted, a new NFT is going to be minted t...

First depositor can inflate share price

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A well-known vulnerability for ERC4626 vaults is the inflation of the share price on the first deposit. Because AutoPxGlp and AutoPxGmx use the balance of the underlying asset for totalAssets and do not have an initial minimum deposit amount, they are al...

Underlying assets stealing in AutoPxGmx and AutoPxGlp via share price manipulation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact pxGMX and pxGLP tokens can be stolen from depositors in AutoPxGmx and AutoPxGlp vaults by manipulating the price of a share. Proof of Concept ERC4626 vaults are subject to a share price manipulation attack that allows an attacker to steal underlying toke...

Lack Of Proper Access Control Might Lead To User Getting Lesser Rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact We can call the function userAccrue for some other user and make their rewards lesser then they expect. In the function it calculates the rewards for a user that are being accrued over a period of time. The math to calculate how much reward a user has...

Compounding is vulnerable to sandwich attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function compound is called in every deposit/withdraw in AutoPxGmx contract. It claim rewards in form of gmxBaseReward and swap them to gmx token. They used amountOutMinimum from input params gmxAmountOut = SWAPROUTER.exactInputSingle...

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 ...

AutoPxGlp and AutoPxGmx are not compliant with ERC4626 standard

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept In both contracts, the previewWithdraw function has the same body // Calculate shares based on the specified assets' proportion of the pool uint256 shares = convertToSharesassets; // Save 1 SLOAD uint256 totalSupply = totalSupply; // Factor in...

NameWrapper: Wrapped to Unregistered to ignore PARENT_CANNOT_CONTROL

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact owner of a wrapped node without CANNOTUNWRAP fuse can unwrap and set the ens.ownernode to zero to be an unregistered state if it happens, even if the node has PARENTCANNOTCONTROL fuse, the parent of the node can change the NameWrappwer.owner of the node...

NameWrapper: one can renew to DoS a Name

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone with enough eth can make a name impossible to be used anymore Proof of Concept Below is a snippet of the proof of concept. The whole code can be found in this gist. And how to run test is in the comment in the gist. This proof of concept...

fee distribution is only for the msg.to contract, instead of the to address of the call traces, which is not reasonable for the gas economic system.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The target contract of the fee distribution is got by contract := msg.To in the evmhooks.go . So the fee distribution is only for the msg.to contract, instead of the to address of the call traces. It means that any one use a contract wallet or setup a...

A registered contract won't earn fees if _recipient is a fresh address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users might fall victims of a false positive: if they use a fresh account as an NFT recipient during contract registration, the transaction won't revert, but the registered contract will never earn fees for the token holder. And since a contract can be...

[M2] It is possible to accidentally send ETH to an invalid token Id

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ​ ETH can be either loss or stolen PoC The function distributeFees is not checking if the tokenId is valid. That means that ETH can be sent to non-minted token. In case tokenId is a big number this ETH will be lost. If the id is not so big someone can mi...

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...

Assign Function Allows for any Other Unknown Contract Address to Assign existing token.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Assign Function Allows for any Other Unknown Contract Address to Assign existing token. Proof of Concept There is no check at all to confirm that the previous token owner allows for the assignment of his tokenId. The assign function only checks the...

gmxBaseReward must not be the same as asset

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Compounding will attempt to swap/deposit all assets instead of just the rewards, which reverts because of integer overflow, which causes withdrawals to revert. Proof of Concept In AutoPxGmx.compound: PirexRewardsrewardsModule.claimasset, addressthis; //...

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 ...

First depositor who is a whale account can deny later depositors who are smaller accounts from using AutoPxGmx contract, such as for depositing GMX for apxGMX

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A whale account that owns a lot of GMX can call the following PirexGmx.depositGmx function to deposit much GMX for pxGMX. As the first depositor for the AutoPxGmx contract, this account can then call the AutoPxGmx.depositGmx function to deposit 1 wei GMX...

Rewards calculation does not consider GMX reward rate fluctuation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The current time based px rewards calculation system is not accurate, and not fair for users. Due to GMX protocol reward rate fluctuation, px users stake and claim at different time could get less or more rewards they deserve. Some users could abuse the...

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...