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
The owner retains significant control, which could potentially be used to modify key contract parameters.
Contract is upgradeable
The contract uses a proxy pattern or similar mechanism, enabling future upgrades. This can introduce risks if the upgrade mechanism is not securely managed.
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 member can send the transaction proposal.
- The member can update the signature state.
- The member can update the transaction state.
- The owner can add or remove the members.
- The owner can mark the transaction as failed and reset its state.
Note - This Audit report consists of a security analysis of the Hathor Federation 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 Hathor Network 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
/
Findings and Audit result
medium Issues | 2 findings
Resolved
#1 medium Issue
Insufficient Validation for failed transactions
The setTransactionFailed function lacks validation of a transaction’s current state before resetting, which risks disrupting workflows, causing data loss, and allowing unauthorized usage. Resetting processed transactions, clearing significant signatures, or arbitrarily resetting proposals could lead to inconsistencies and security issues. To mitigate this, validate the transaction’s state by ensuring it is not already processed, has no critical signatures, and was properly proposed. Adding these checks prevents unnecessary resets, protects critical data, and ensures predictable behavior. Incorporating validation enhances security, maintains data integrity, and aligns the function with federation workflows, reducing the likelihood of misuse or unintended consequences.
Resolved
#2 medium Issue
Missing threshold for members count.
The addMember function allows the contract owner to add new members to the federation. However, there are no restrictions or limits on the number of members that can be added. This introduces potential risks and inefficiencies, particularly as the member list (members array) grows unbounded. To mitigate this, Introduce a cap on the total number of members.
low Issues | 2 findings
Resolved
#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.
Acknowledged
#2 low Issue
Lack of Input Token Validation
The function does not validate whether the txHex data is consistent with the provided transaction details (e.g., sender, receiver, value). This could lead to invalid or malicious proposals being accepted.