Reproduced Exploit

Resolv: transferFee() uses safeTransferFrom instead of safeTransfer

Jan 1970Otheruntagged2 min read

Chain

Other

Category

untagged

Date

Jan 1970

Source

DeFiHackLabs

EVM Playground

Source-level debugger — step opcodes and Solidity in sync

evm-hack-analyzer

The attack is replayed in an in-browser EVM preloaded with the exact dumped fork state. The execution tree shows every call; step by Solidity line or by opcode across all depths — source, Stack, Memory, Storage, Balances (native / ERC-20 / NFT), Transient storage and Return value stay in sync. Click a tree node, opcode, or source line to jump. No backend, no live RPC.

Loading fork state…

Source & credit. Exploit reproduction, trace data, and analysis adapted from DeFiHackLabs by SunWeb3Sec — an open registry of reproduced on-chain exploits. The historical source/toolchain is unavailable; this entry is documentation only and claims no executable Forge PoC. DeFiHackLabs PoC directory: src/test.


Vulnerability classes: vuln/logic

Reproduction: a faithful minimal reproduction of the vulnerable finding — the vulnerable code is reproduced verbatim (marked @>) with faithful minimal doubles; local deploy, no fork.

Root cause#

transferFee() uses safeTransferFrom to move the contract's own tokens (no self-allowance) instead of safeTransfer, so every fee withdrawal reverts and 100e18 of protocol fees are permanently stuck.

SOLIDITY
        uint256 feeToTransfer = accumulatedFee;
        accumulatedFee = 0;
        token.safeTransferFrom(address(this), msg.sender, feeToTransfer); // @> VULN (this line)

Why it's exploitable here#

transferFee() uses safeTransferFrom to move the contract's own tokens (no self-allowance) instead of safeTransfer, so every fee withdrawal reverts and 100e18 of protocol fees are permanently stuck.

Attack path#

flowchart TD S0["Step"] S1["Step"] S2["Vulnerable line"] S3["Step"] S4["Step"] H["transferFee() uses safeTransferFrom to move the contract's o"] S0 --> S1 S1 --> S2 S2 --> S3 S3 --> S4 S4 --> H

Marked-line walkthrough (Playground)#

The EVM Playground pins each step to the exact executed source line in 0x671d353a77…:

  1. L37 — Step: Executes string public name = 'USDC';
  2. L40 — Step: Executes mapping(address => uint256) public balanceOf;
  3. L75 — Vulnerable line: Executes token.safeTransferFrom(address(this), msg.sender, feeToTransfer);
  4. L83 — Step: Executes contract Exploit {
  5. L84 — Step: Executes address internal constant SINK = 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000D00d;
  6. L85 — Step: Executes uint256 internal constant FEE = 100e18;

PoC#

Registry (Foundry, local deploy — verbatim vulnerable source + harm-asserting test):

BASH
cd 62187-h-01-transferfee-uses-an-incorrect-transfer-method-pashov-au_exp
forge test -vvv

The browser Playground replays the same synthetic opcode-for-opcode and measures the harm. Both gates are green (registry forge test PASS + Playground _verify-poc VERDICT: PASS).


Sources & further analysis#

Reproductions & code

  • No executable Forge reproduction is claimed; the historical source/toolchain was unavailable for this finding.
  • Upstream DeFiHackLabs PoC directory: src/test.

Alerts & third-party analyses

These dashboards index community alerts tweets, post-mortems, and independent write-ups. Reach them through the protocol name above to cross-check this reproduction against other analyses.