Garuda DeFi Info
Garuda-Defi is a decentralized financial in Terra Classic Blockchain (LUNC), created by Garuda Universe. Aims to make all De-fi activity easy for projects with all the support they need, and easy for users to find and support the projects they believe in.
Team and KYC Verification
The team has securely submitted their personal information to SolidProof.io for verification.
In the event of any fraudulent activities, this information will be promptly reported to the relevant authorities to ensure accountability and compliance.
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.
Note - This Audit report consists of a security analysis of the GaurdaX Cw20 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 GaurdaX 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
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Findings and Audit result
medium Issues | 1 findings
Resolved
#1 medium Issue
Insufficient amount validation
There is no validation of user balance in the send and transfer functions to update balances. Consider adding checks on the amount for the amount greater than the user balance; it should not be zero value.
low Issues | 4 findings
Pending
#1 low Issue
Zero value check
The execute_increase_allowance and execute_decrease_alloewance function currently lack a validation check for zero values in the amount parameter. Adding a check to prevent zero-value inputs can help avoid unnecessary function calls, optimize gas usage (in blockchain applications), and enhance overall efficiency. Consider implementing this validation to improve performance and resource utilization.
Resolved
#2 low Issue
Lack of validation in execute_transfer_from function
The execute_transfer_from function currently does not validate the existing allowance or the user’s balance before executing a transfer. Consider adding checks to ensure that the user’s balance is sufficient and that the spender’s allowance is greater than or equal to the transfer amount. Implementing these validations can prevent failed transactions, improve security, and enhance overall efficiency.
Resolved
#3 low Issue
Lack of validation in execute_transfer function
The function currently lacks validation to check if the recipient address is the same as the sender’s address. Consider adding a check to prevent self-transfers, as they may be unnecessary or could lead to unintended side effects. Implementing this validation can improve transaction integrity and prevent redundant operations.
Resolved
#4 low Issue
Lack of validation in execute_update_minter function
The execute_update_minter function currently lacks a validation check to ensure that the new_minter is different from the existing minter. Consider adding a check to prevent redundant updates when the new minter value is the same as the current one. This can help optimize function calls, reduce unnecessary transactions, and improve overall system efficiency.