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.
TrustNet DataPulse
We are presently engaged in detailed discussions with our partners to finalize the arrangements. Information regarding presales will be made available on this platform in the near future. We appreciate your patience and look forward to sharing the upcoming opportunities with you soon!
We are currently in discussions with our partners to finalize the details. Information on token locking and vesting schedules will be provided on this platform soon. We appreciate your patience and look forward to sharing these upcoming opportunities with you shortly.
In the meantime, we’ve already integrated the LP lock overview from UNCX.network. Please visit the CEX/DEX tab for more information.
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 can set high fees
Contract owner is able to set fees above 25%. Very high fees can also prevent token transfer.
Token transfer can be locked
Owner can lock user funds with owner functions.
Token cannot be burned
There is no burn function within the contract.
Ownership is not renounced
Contract can be manipulated by owner functions.
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.
- Owner
- can set following state variables without any limitation
- fee
- can set following addresses
- fundBox
- cannot call internal functions directly. Following internal function cannot be called by the owner because it is not used in the contract:
- pop_judge
- can set following state variables without any limitation
- Owner is able to withdraw all tokens from a token with the "withdrawRewardAdmin" function
- Anyone can read the "code" in the constructor even it is a private variable. That means, that the if condition in the "add_judge" where the passed "_code" (keccak256) is compared to the code keccak256 is unnecessary
- We highly recommend you to check the require statements where the "timestamp()" is called because the contract is looking for that the times are not same as the timestamp, and this will just happen only once.
- Block.timestamp is in seconds, the timestamp() function is converting it to milliseconds
- Fees will be deposited into the "_depositBox" state variable without any differentials. That causes that the fees cannot be seperated from each other. Anybody is able to withdraw this value.
- User funds are locked while submitting as subscriber. You are not able to withdraw it because the status cannot be changed anymore.
- Anyone can basically
- withdraw the subscript for any arbitrary address as long as the caller is not the owner. This can be bypassed by another own private wallet.
- withdraw the amount of the rewards to an arbitrary address without permission until the depostbox is empty
Files and details
Functions
public
/
State variables
public
/
Total lines
of code
/
Capabilities
Hover on items
/
Findings and Audit result
high Issues | 4 findings
Pending
#1 high Issue
Wrong condition check
The "_limitationWithdraw != timestamp()" require statement is wrong. In this case the caller can call the withdraw function all the time, except the timestamp of 8 days.
Pending
#2 high Issue
Withdrawing whole deposited fees
Everyone except the judge (who can bypass this check with another wallet) can withdraw the whole deposition by calling the function more than once. This function has no limitation to withdraw everything. Additionally they can pass any "judgeId" to get the deposited fees to the judge. There is also no check that the judge is allowed to get it.
Pending
#3 high Issue
Subscriber cannot withdraw
subscriber is not able to withdraw the balance of subscription because the active state will never set to false. It is true by default.
Pending
#4 high Issue
Dividing by 0
The "submit_openHatch" function will be reverted when the "submit_fee" is set to 0. You cannot divide by zero in the totalFee calculation. Make sure to check the "get_submitFee function because it is returning submit_fee * 1000 in this case.
low Issues | 4 findings
Pending
#1 low Issue
Missing Events Arithmetic (events-maths)
Emit an event for critical parameter changes.
Pending
#2 low Issue
Missing Zero Address Validation (missing-zero-check)
Check that the address is not zero.
Pending
#3 low Issue
State variable visibility is missing
We recommend you to set the visibility for the state variables.
Pending
#4 low Issue
Wrong TypeBox in withdrawRewardAdmin function
In the "withdrawRewardAdmin" function you should use the TYPEBOX.REWARDS instead of TYPEBOX.FEES
optimization Issues | 1 findings
Pending
#1 optimization Issue
Public function that could be declared external (external-function)
Use the `external` attribute for functions never called from the contract.
informational Issues | 7 findings
Pending
#1 informational Issue
Functions that are not used (dead-code)
Remove unused functions.
Pending
#2 informational Issue
Ineffective variable setting in timestampDays functions
"time" variable can be set directly as "uint256 time = _day * 86400000"
Pending
#3 informational Issue
Confusing function name
We recommend you to modify the "get_adminBox" function name to "get_feeBox"like based on the "get_rewardsBox"
Pending
#4 informational Issue
Check length
We recommend you to check the length of "_judges" is higher than the "_id" parameter in the function. Any values above it be the default "Judge_form" without any data in it anyway. Same for the "get_judge" function
Pending
#5 informational Issue
Wrong error message
We recommend you to adjust the error message in the isOpen modifier because it is looking for the active status of the openHatch instead of the author.
Pending
#6 informational Issue
Unnecessary if statement
In this case that the require statement in L561 is checking the same condition as the "if" condition and a modifier is not checking the local variable "result" at any points, it is unnecessary. We recommend you to remove it.
Pending
#7 informational Issue
Struct was not used in the contract
Remove or use the struct "Box_Fees"