Audit name:
[SCA] 1DFX | Staking Pool | Jul2024
Date:
Aug 6, 2024
Table of Content
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the 1DFX team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
The staking product, 1DFX, aims to attract crypto-native traders, liquidity providers, and novice crypto traders by offering incentives for early participation. It establishes a liquidity pool where participants can deposit tokens, receive LP tokens, and stake them to earn 1DFX tokens as rewards.
Document | |
|---|---|
| Name | Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for 1DFX |
| Audited By | Turgay Arda Usman |
| Approved By | Ataberk Yavuzer |
| Website | N/A |
| Changelog | 19/07/2024 - Preliminary Report |
| 06/08/2024 - Final Report | |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | Staking |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for 1DFX
- Audited By
- Turgay Arda Usman
- Approved By
- Ataberk Yavuzer
- Website
- N/A
- Changelog
- 19/07/2024 - Preliminary Report
- 06/08/2024 - Final Report
- Language
- Solidity
- Tags
- Staking
- Methodology
- https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://git.liquid-lab.io/1dfx/1dfx-staking-pool→ |
| Commit | e978e43bebb02e1a221be571c3b304ae0bd2b359 |
Review Scope
- Commit
- e978e43bebb02e1a221be571c3b304ae0bd2b359
Audit Summary
The system users should acknowledge all the risks summed up in the risks section of the report
Documentation quality
Functional requirements are provided.
Technical description is partially provided.
Code quality
The code mostly follows best practices and style guides.
See informational issues and observations for more details.
The development environment is configured.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 100% (branch coverage),
Deployment and basic user interactions are covered with tests.
Negative cases coverage is covered with tests.
Interactions by several users are tested thoroughly.
System Overview
The staking product, 1DFX, aims to attract crypto-native traders, liquidity providers, and novice crypto traders by offering incentives for early participation. It establishes a liquidity pool where participants can deposit tokens, receive LP tokens, and stake them to earn 1DFX tokens as rewards. The product focuses on providing a fair reward distribution, preventing price discovery initially, and incentivizing liquidity providers to keep their funds in the pool through staking rewards and vesting mechanisms. It has the following contracts:
StakingTokenFacet — Facet for staking, unstaking, and claiming rewards. LibRewardPool — Library for managing the reward pool, including initialization and reward parameter management. RewardPoolFacet — Facet for managing reward parameters and calculations. LibStakingToken — Library for managing staking token operations including staking, unstaking, and reward calculations. LeadInPoolFacet —Facet for handling immature staking records. LibLeadInPool — Library for managing the immature staking records.
Privileged roles
STAKE_POOL_MANAGERcan set reward and staking parameters.STAKE_POOL_MANAGERcan lock reward pool parameters.
Risks
The audit does not cover all code in the repository. Contracts outside the audit scope may introduce vulnerabilities, potentially impacting the overall security due to the interconnected nature of smart contracts.
The implemented LibLeadInPool, RewardPoolFacet, LibStakingToken, StakingTokenFacet, IRewardMintableToken logics highly depend on external contracts not covered by the audit. This reliance introduces risks if these external contracts are compromised or contain vulnerabilities, affecting the audited project's integrity.
The project iterates over large dynamic arrays, which leads to excessive gas costs, risking denial of service due to out-of-gas errors, directly impacting contract usability and reliability.
The current version of the code does not support fee-on-transfer tokens. Adding such tokens in the future can create risks.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2024-4325 | Inefficient Deletion Logic | accepted | Low | |
| F-2024-4328 | Unsafe Downcasting to Uint40 | accepted | Observation | |
| F-2024-4326 | Division Before Multiplication | mitigated | Observation | |
| F-2024-4324 | Comparison of Different Uint Types | mitigated | Observation | |
| F-2024-4323 | Division by Zero | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-4322 | Overflow Possibility in Mathematical Operations | mitigated | Observation | |
| F-2024-6353 | Reinserting After All Dequeues Leads to Queue Growing Indefinitely | fixed | Observation |
Appendix 1. Severity Definitions
When auditing smart contracts, Hacken is using a risk-based approach that considers Likelihood, Impact, Exploitability and Complexity metrics to evaluate findings and score severities.
Reference on how risk scoring is done is available through the repository in our Github organization:
Severity | Description |
|---|---|
Critical | Critical vulnerabilities are usually straightforward to exploit and can lead to the loss of user funds or contract state manipulation. |
High | High vulnerabilities are usually harder to exploit, requiring specific conditions, or have a more limited scope, but can still lead to the loss of user funds or contract state manipulation. |
Medium | Medium vulnerabilities are usually limited to state manipulations and, in most cases, cannot lead to asset loss. Contradictions and requirements violations. Major deviations from best practices are also in this category. |
Low | Major deviations from best practices or major Gas inefficiency. These issues will not have a significant impact on code execution, do not affect security score but can affect code quality score. |
Severity
- Critical
Description
- Critical vulnerabilities are usually straightforward to exploit and can lead to the loss of user funds or contract state manipulation.
Severity
- High
Description
- High vulnerabilities are usually harder to exploit, requiring specific conditions, or have a more limited scope, but can still lead to the loss of user funds or contract state manipulation.
Severity
- Medium
Description
- Medium vulnerabilities are usually limited to state manipulations and, in most cases, cannot lead to asset loss. Contradictions and requirements violations. Major deviations from best practices are also in this category.
Severity
- Low
Description
- Major deviations from best practices or major Gas inefficiency. These issues will not have a significant impact on code execution, do not affect security score but can affect code quality score.
Appendix 2. Scope
The scope of the project includes the following smart contracts from the provided repository:
Scope Details | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://git.liquid-lab.io/1dfx/1dfx-staking-pool→ |
| Commit | e978e43bebb02e1a221be571c3b304ae0bd2b359 |
| Whitepaper | provided as a file |
| Requirements | provided as a file |
| Technical Requirements | provided as a file |
Scope Details
- Commit
- e978e43bebb02e1a221be571c3b304ae0bd2b359
- Whitepaper
- provided as a file
- Requirements
- provided as a file
- Technical Requirements
- provided as a file