Autogas Info
Autogas is a platform where you can create unique digital items, earn rewards generated by the treasury, and with a built in router, you can manage your ETH rewards easily. With Autogas, you get a 5% crypto back when using a referral code, and when your friends use your referral code, you earn another 5% from their transactions. It's all about making your digital management simple and rewarding.
TrustNet Score
The TrustNet Score evaluates crypto projects based on audit results, security, KYC verification, and social media presence. This score offers a quick, transparent view of a project's credibility, helping users make informed decisions in the Web3 space.
Real-Time Threat Detection
Real-time threat detection, powered by Cyvers.io, is currently not activated for this project.
This advanced feature provides continuous monitoring and instant alerts to safeguard your assets from potential security threats. Real-time detection enhances your project's security by proactively identifying and mitigating risks. For more information, click here.
Security Assessments
Summary and Final Words
No crucial issues found
The contract does not contain issues of high or medium criticality. This means that no known vulnerabilities were found in the source code.
Contract owner cannot mint
It is not possible to mint new tokens.
Contract owner cannot blacklist addresses.
It is not possible to lock user funds by blacklisting addresses.
Contract owner cannot set high fees
The fees, if applicable, can be a maximum of 25% or lower. The contract can therefore not be locked. Please take a look in the comment section for more details.
Contract cannot be locked
Owner cannot lock any user funds.
Token cannot be burned
There is no burning within the contract without any allowances
Ownership is not renounced
Contract can be manipulated by owner functions.
Contract is not upgradeable
The contract does not use proxy patterns or other mechanisms to allow future upgrades. Its behavior is locked in its current state.
Scope of Work
This audit encompasses the evaluation of the files listed below, each verified with a SHA-1 Hash. The team referenced above has provided the necessary files for assessment.
The auditing process consists of the following systematic steps:
- Specification Review: Analyze the provided specifications, source code, and instructions to fully understand the smart contract's size, scope, and functionality.
- Manual Code Examination: Conduct a thorough line-by-line review of the source code to identify potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement.
- Specification Alignment: Ensure that the code accurately implements the provided specifications and intended functionalities.
- Test Coverage Assessment: Evaluate the extent and effectiveness of test cases in covering the codebase, identifying any gaps in testing.
- Symbolic Execution: Analyze the smart contract to determine how various inputs affect execution paths, identifying potential edge cases and vulnerabilities.
- Best Practices Evaluation: Assess the smart contracts against established industry and academic best practices to enhance efficiency, maintainability, and security.
- Actionable Recommendations: Provide detailed, specific, and actionable steps to secure and optimize the smart contracts.
A file with a different Hash has been intentionally or otherwise modified after the security review. A different Hash may indicate a changed condition or potential vulnerability that was not within the scope of this review.
Final Words
The following provides a concise summary of the audit report, accompanied by insightful comments from the auditor. This overview captures the key findings and observations, offering valuable context and clarity.
Ownership Privileges
- The owner or treasury address can update the airdrop list.
- The owner or treasury address can update the payout shares.
- The owner can withdraw tokens from the contract.
Note - This Audit report consists of a security analysis of the Autogas liquidation smart contract. This analysis did not include functional testing (or unit testing) of the contract’s logic. Moreover, we only audited one token contract for the Autogas team. Other contracts associated with the project were not audited by our team. We recommend investors do their own research before investing.
Files and details
Findings and Audit result
medium Issues | 2 findings
Pending
#1 medium Issue
The owner can drain tokens.
The emergencyWithdraw function allows the contract owner to withdraw all native cryptocurrency or ERC-20 tokens from the contract, giving them full control over funds. While this is standard for emergency mechanisms, it introduces risks, including potential misuse, lack of safeguards, and centralized control. There is no restriction on when or why the function can be used, and it lacks transparency, as no event is emitted to track withdrawals. To mitigate risks, consider adding restrictions like a timelock, governance approval, or an “emergency mode” flag. Including an event for transparency and ensuring owner accountability are also crucial improvements.
Pending
#2 medium Issue
Missing 'isContract' check.
The contract lacks a validation check to ensure that specific parameters are contract addresses. Without this check, there is a risk that non-contract addresses (such as externally owned accounts, or EOAs) could be mistakenly set for parameters intended to reference other contracts. This could lead to failures in executing critical interactions within the contract, as EOAs do not support contract-specific functions. To mitigate this, Implement a validation check to ensure that parameters designated as contract addresses are verified as such. This can be done using Solidity’s Address library function isContract, which checks if an address has associated contract code.
low Issues | 4 findings
Pending
#1 low Issue
Floating pragma solidity version
Adding the constant version of solidity is recommended, as this prevents the unintentional deployment of a contract with an outdated compiler that contains unresolved bugs.
Pending
#2 low Issue
Redundant code
The line ILiquidation(address(liquidation)).setNFTPayoutAddress(tokenId, payoutAddress); is repeated twice. This is redundant and should be fixed unless there’s a specific intention (e.g., interacting with two separate contracts that isn’t apparent here). It is recommended to remove the redundant code from the contract.
Pending
#3 low Issue
Missing events.
It is recommended to emit all the critical parameter changes.
Pending
#4 low Issue
Redundant check.
msg.sender is always a valid address set by the EVM and cannot be address(0). This check is unnecessary and wastes gas.