🚀
Smart Contract Auditors Space
  • 👋Welcome to the Smart Contract Auditors Space
  • Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
    • Anchor
      • FV-ANC-1 Arithmetic Operations
        • FV-ANC-1-CL1 Overflow/underflow in arithmetic operations
        • FV-ANC-1-CL2 Division by zero
        • FV-ANC-1-CL3 Arbitrary rounding
      • FV-ANC-2 Signer Checks
        • FV-ANC-2-CL1 Unvalidated signers
        • FV-ANC-2-CL2 No is_signer check
      • FV-ANC-3 Account/Ownership Validations
        • FV-ANC-3-CL1 Trying to modify an account without checking if it's writeable
        • FV-ANC-3-CL2 Trying to access account data without ownership checks
        • FV-ANC-3-CL3 Usage of UncheckedAccount without manual ownership check
        • FV-ANC-3-CL4 Usage of UncheckedAccount without manual signer check
        • FV-ANC-3-CL5 No is_initialized check when operating on an account
        • FV-ANC-3-CL6 Missing account constraints
        • FV-ANC-3-CL7 Duplicate mutable accounts
        • FV-ANC-3-CL8 Using ctx.remaining_accounts without manual ownership check
        • FV-ANC-3-CL9 Using ctx.remaining_accounts without manual discriminator check
        • FV-ANC-3-CL10 Using ctx.remaining_accounts without non-zero data check
        • FV-ANC-3-CL11 No reload after account mutation
        • FV-ANC-3-CL12 Not validating a set address
      • FV-ANC-4 PDA Security
        • FV-ANC-4-CL1 Using create_program_address
      • FV-ANC-5 Cross-Program Invocation (CPI)
        • FV-ANC-5-CL1 Lack of validation of external program before CPI
        • FV-ANC-5-CL2 CPI without signer seeds
        • FV-ANC-5-CL3 Not unsetting signer status before a CPI
        • FV-ANC-5-CL4 Passing unnecessary accounts to CPIs
      • FV-ANC-6 Error Handling
        • FV-ANC-6-CL1 Unclear error messages
      • FV-ANC-7 Token Operations
        • FV-ANC-7-CL1 Unvalidated token mint & owner
        • FV-ANC-7-CL2 Using init with an ATA
      • FV-ANC-8 System Account Validation
        • FV-ANC-8-CL1 Unvalidated sysvar address
      • FV-ANC-9 Type Cosplay
        • FV-ANC-9-CL1 Not using discriminators to validate account types
        • FV-ANC-9-CL2 Account structures without discriminators
      • FV-ANC-10 Closing accounts
        • FV-ANC-10-CL1 Closing accounts without zeroing data & setting a closed discriminator
        • FV-ANC-10-CL2 Operations on accounts marked as closed
        • FV-ANC-10-CL3 Unintended closure by close constraint
    • Solidity
      • FV-SOL-1 Reentrancy
        • FV-SOL-1-C1 Single Function
        • FV-SOL-1-C2 Cross Function
        • FV-SOL-1-C3 Cross Contract
        • FV-SOL-1-C4 Cross Chain
        • FV-SOL-1-C5 Dynamic
        • FV-SOL-1-C6 Read-Only
      • FV-SOL-2 Precision Errors
        • FV-SOL-2-C1 Token Decimals
        • FV-SOL-2-C2 Floating Point
        • FV-SOL-2-C3 Rounding
        • FV-SOL-2-C4 Division by Zero
        • FV-SOL-2-C5 Time-Based
      • FV-SOL-3 Arithmetic Errors
        • FV-SOL-3-C1 Overflow and Underflow
        • FV-SOL-3-C2 Sign Extension
        • FV-SOL-3-C3 Truncation in Type Casting
        • FV-SOL-3-C4 Misuse of Environment Variables
      • FV-SOL-4 Bad Access Control
        • FV-SOL-4-C1 Using tx.origin for Authorization
        • FV-SOL-4-C2 Unrestricted Role Assignment
        • FV-SOL-4-C3 Lack of Multi-Signature for Crucial Operations
      • FV-SOL-5 Logic Errors
        • FV-SOL-5-C1 Boundary Misalignment
        • FV-SOL-5-C2 Incorrect Conditionals
        • FV-SOL-5-C3 Improper State Transitions
        • FV-SOL-5-C4 Misordered Calculations
        • FV-SOL-5-C5 Event Misreporting
      • FV-SOL-6 Unchecked Returns
        • FV-SOL-6-C1 Unchecked Call Return
        • FV-SOL-6-C2 Unchecked Transfer Return
        • FV-SOL-6-C3 Silent Fail
        • FV-SOL-6-C4 False Positive Success Assumption
        • FV-SOL-6-C5 Partial Execution with No Rollback
        • FV-SOL-6-C6 False Contract Existence Assumption
      • FV-SOL-7 Proxy Insecurities
        • FV-SOL-7-C1 delegatecall Storage Collision
        • FV-SOL-7-C2 Function Selector Collision
        • FV-SOL-7-C3 Centralized Update Control
        • FV-SOL-7-C4 Uninitialized Proxy
      • FV-SOL-8 Slippage
        • FV-SOL-8-C1 Price Manipulation
        • FV-SOL-8-C2 Front-Running
        • FV-SOL-8-C3 Insufficient Liquidity
        • FV-SOL-8-C4 Unexpected Gas Increase
      • FV-SOL-9 Unbounded Loops
        • FV-SOL-9-C1 Dynamic Array
        • FV-SOL-9-C2 Unrestricted Mapping
        • FV-SOL-9-C3 Recursive Calls
        • FV-SOL-9-C4 Reentrancy Loops
        • FV-SOL-9-C5 Nested Loops
      • FV-SOL-10 Oracle Manipulation
        • FV-SOL-10-C1 Incorrect Compounding Mechanism
        • FV-SOL-10-C2 Price Drift
        • FV-SOL-10-C3 Manipulation Through External Markets
        • FV-SOL-10-C4 Time Lags
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • TLDR
  • Game

Was this helpful?

  1. Smart Contract Vulnerabilities
  2. Solidity
  3. FV-SOL-8 Slippage

FV-SOL-8-C2 Front-Running

TLDR

Exploiting the price calculation mechanism to cause an unusually high slippage rate

Game

This contract allows users to execute token swaps on a DEX. This transactions are visible in the mempool. Umm.. what else?

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
// Open me in VSCode and really think before opening the hints!
// Add @audit tags wherever suspicious
// Go to the solidity docs to complete missing knowledge of what's happening here
// Solve by drafting a fix!
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

interface IDEX {
    function swap(address tokenIn, address tokenOut, uint256 amountIn) external returns (uint256);
    function getPrice(address tokenIn, address tokenOut) external view returns (uint256);
}

contract FrontRunningGame {
    IDEX public dex;
    address public tokenOut;

    constructor(address _dex, address _tokenOut) {
        dex = IDEX(_dex);
        tokenOut = _tokenOut;
    }

    // Function to perform a swap without protection against front-running
    function executeSwap(address tokenIn, uint256 amountIn, uint256 minAmountOut) public {
        uint256 amountOut = dex.swap(tokenIn, tokenOut, amountIn);
        require(amountOut >= minAmountOut, "Slippage too high");
    }
}

Consider how you might prevent front-runners from knowing the exact price or transaction parameters until execution. Is there a way to obfuscate the trade details?

Using a two-step commit-reveal scheme can help protect users by preventing attackers from viewing the trade parameters in the mempool.

contract FrontRunningGame {
    IDEX public dex;
    address public tokenOut;

    struct Trade {
        uint256 amountIn;
        uint256 minAmountOut;
    }

    mapping(address => bytes32) public tradeCommitments;

    constructor(address _dex, address _tokenOut) {
        dex = IDEX(_dex);
        tokenOut = _tokenOut;
    }

    // Fix step 1: User commits to a trade by submitting a hash
    function commitTrade(bytes32 tradeHash) public {
        tradeCommitments[msg.sender] = tradeHash;
    }

    // Fix step 2: User reveals trade details, which are checked against the committed hash
    function revealTrade(address tokenIn, uint256 amountIn, uint256 minAmountOut) public {
        // Fix step 3: Verify that the revealed parameters match the committed hash
        require(tradeCommitments[msg.sender] == keccak256(abi.encodePacked(tokenIn, amountIn, minAmountOut)), "Invalid commitment");

        uint256 amountOut = dex.swap(tokenIn, tokenOut, amountIn);
        require(amountOut >= minAmountOut, "Slippage too high");

        // Clear commitment after successful trade
        delete tradeCommitments[msg.sender];
    }
}
PreviousFV-SOL-8-C1 Price ManipulationNextFV-SOL-8-C3 Insufficient Liquidity

Last updated 6 months ago

Was this helpful?