hellowuzekai/blockchains

Integer overflow vulnerability in payable function of a smart contract implementation for an Ethereum token, as demonstrated by the smart contract implemented at address 0xB49E984A83d7A638E7F2889fc8328952BA951AbE, an implementation for MillionCoin (MON).

An issue was discovered in function addMeByRC in the smart contract implementation for RC, an Ethereum token, allows attackers to transfer an arbitrary amount of tokens to an arbitrary address.

An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for MKCB, an Ethereum token. If the owner sets the value of sellPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "amount * sellPrice" will cause an integer overflow in sell().

An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for UserWallet 0x0a7bca9FB7AfF26c6ED8029BB6f0F5D291587c42, an Ethereum token. First, suppose that the owner adds the evil contract address to his sweepers. The evil contract looks like this: contract Exploit { uint public start; function sweep(address _token, uint _amount) returns (bool) { start = 0x123456789; return true;} }. Then, when one calls the function sweep() in the UserWallet contract, it will change the sweeperList to 0X123456789.

An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for SingaporeCoinOrigin (SCO), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of sellPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "amount * sellPrice" will cause an integer overflow in sell().

An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for EUC (EUC), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of buyPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "msg.value * buyPrice" will cause an integer overflow in the fallback function.

An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for STeX White List (STE(WL)), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of amount to a large number then the "amount * 1000000000000000" will cause an integer overflow in withdrawToFounders().

An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for Virgo_ZodiacToken, an Ethereum token. In this contract, 'bool sufficientAllowance = allowance <= _value' will cause an arbitrary transfer in the function transferFrom because '<=' is used instead of '>=' (which was intended). An attacker can transfer from any address to his address, and does not need to meet the 'allowance > value' condition.