TapDaDoge Info
TapDaDoge promises an easily accessible, endlessly entertaining and rewarding experience. The player (You) takes control of their NFT Characters to jump over obstacles and in the process, earns various types of Points, which can be used in exchange for more goodies. The game is meant to have simple and intuitive mechanics that are tough to master but highly rewarding. Now, let’s get acquainted with our main cast of Characters (NFTs). Below are a limited sample of our Furry Friends, also known as “Doges”. You’ll notice that they have each been assigned a designation (e.g. “Unique”, “Legendary”, et cetera.).
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.
Ownership is not renounced
The owner retains significant control, which could potentially be used to modify key contract parameters.
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
INO.sol
- The owner can set levels.
- The owner can update the BNB price.
- The owner can update the treasury address.
Note - This Audit report consists of a security analysis of the TapDaDoge smart contract. This analysis did not include functional testing (or unit testing) of the contract’s logic. Moreover, we only audited the mentioned contract for the TapDaDoge 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 | 4 findings
Pending
#1 medium Issue
Insecure Randomness
The randomLevel() function uses predictable variables (block.timestamp, block.prevrandao, msg.sender, gasleft(), nonce) for randomness. This method is vulnerable to manipulation by miners or prediction by observers. Implement a more secure randomness source like Chainlink VRF or commit-reveal schemes. If using on-chain randomness is necessary, consider adding more unpredictable sources of entropy or time delays between random generation and usage.
Pending
#2 medium Issue
Lack of input validation.
In setLevel, there are no checks to ensure the levels follow a logical progression (maxLevel1 ≤ maxLevel2 ≤ ... ≤ maxLevel10) or that maxLevel10 is greater than zero. This could break the randomLevel function's logic and lead to unexpected level distributions. Additionally, the function doesn't emit any events, making it difficult to track probability changes. For setPriceBNB, there's no validation that the price is reasonable - it could be set to zero or an astronomically high value, either preventing purchases or causing users to overpay significantly. The function also doesn't check for price reasonability relative to token value. Mitigation requires adding appropriate validation checks. For setLevel, implement sequential value checks (requiring each level to be greater than or equal to the previous one) and ensure maxLevel10 is positive. For setPriceBNB, add minimum and maximum bounds for the price parameter and consider implementing a gradual price change mechanism to prevent abrupt price modifications that could harm users.
Pending
#3 medium Issue
Missing Non-reentrant check.
The buyWithBNB() function performs an external call to transfer ETH before updating the state (minting NFTs). This pattern could be exploited for reentrancy attacks if the treasury address is a malicious contract. Implement the checks-effects-interactions pattern by moving the external call after all state changes, or use a reentrancy guard. Consider using SafeERC20's safeTransfer methods consistently throughout the contract.
Pending
#4 medium Issue
Logical Issues in randomLevel
The randomLevel() function assumes that the values in the Level struct are monotonically increasing, but there's no validation to ensure this. If values are set incorrectly, the level distribution will be unpredictable. Add validation in the setLevel() function to ensure that maxLevel1 <= maxLevel2 <= ... <= maxLevel10. Also consider adding a function to view the current probability distribution for transparency.
low Issues | 2 findings
Pending
#1 low Issue
Missing zero or dead address check.
It is recommended to check that the address cannot be set to zero or dead address.
Pending
#2 low Issue
Potential Gas Limit Exceeded
The buyWithBNB() function contains a loop that iterates based on the amount parameter with no upper bound. If a user specifies a very large amount, the transaction could exceed the block gas limit and fail. Implement a maximum limit for the amount parameter to prevent excessive gas consumption. Consider batch processing for large purchases.
informational Issues | 1 findings
Pending
#1 informational 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.