Introduction
We express our gratitude to the ADI Chain team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
ADI Chain builds compliance-ready blockchain infrastructure for regulated economies. The audit covers the CertificateStorage contract which acts as on-chain storage for UAC candidate certification records.
Document | |
|---|---|
| Name | Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for ADI Chain |
| Audited By | Stepan Chekhovskoi |
| Approved By | Panagiotis Konstantinidis |
| Website | https://adi.foundation→ |
| Changelog | 23/01/2026 - Preliminary Report |
| 30/01/2026 - Final Report | |
| Platform | ADI Network |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | Registry, Certificates |
| Methodology | https://docs.hacken.io/methodologies/smart-contracts→ |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for ADI Chain
- Audited By
- Stepan Chekhovskoi
- Approved By
- Panagiotis Konstantinidis
- Website
- https://adi.foundation→
- Changelog
- 23/01/2026 - Preliminary Report
- 30/01/2026 - Final Report
- Platform
- ADI Network
- Language
- Solidity
- Tags
- Registry, Certificates
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://gitlab.sre.ideasoft.io/adi-foundation/uacuae/smart-contracts→ |
| Initial Commit | 7ec2c3698ad4f72f585bb9ec4ea5b33e0c6af17a |
| Final Commit | c7f95a660c384e1909d00bf84b59e7217b55ab69 |
Review Scope
- Initial Commit
- 7ec2c3698ad4f72f585bb9ec4ea5b33e0c6af17a
- Final Commit
- c7f95a660c384e1909d00bf84b59e7217b55ab69
Audit Summary
The system users should acknowledge all the risks summed up in the risks section of the report
{Finding_Table?columns=title,severity,status&setting.filter.type=Vulnerability}
Documentation quality
Brief overview of the contract functionality is given.
Technical description is provided.
Code quality
The code is clear and well-structured.
The development environment is configured.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 90.6% (branch coverage).
Deployment and user interactions are covered with tests.
System Overview
The CertificateStorage contract allows authorized actors to create, update, revoke certificates.
Certificates may have Uninitialized, Active, Revoked status. Revoked certificates cannot be reactivated.
Certificate update allows complete metadata change. Functionality for old certificate version retrieve is implemented for transparency.
Certificate might have expiry date passed while status is still Active, integrating systems should properly check the expiry date.
Privileged roles
The system Admin is allowed to upgrade the contract.
The system Admin is allowed to set the
SYSTEM_ROLEholders.The
SYSTEM_ROLEholders are allowed to create, update, revoke certificates.
Potential Risks
Flexibility and Risk in Contract Upgrades: The project's contracts are upgradable, allowing the administrator to update the contract logic at any time. While this provides flexibility in addressing issues and evolving the project, it also introduces risks if upgrade processes are not properly managed or secured, potentially allowing for unauthorized changes that could compromise the project's integrity and security.
Single Points of Failure and Control: The project is fully centralized, introducing single points of failure and control. This centralization can lead to vulnerabilities in decision-making and operational processes, making the system more susceptible to targeted attacks or manipulation.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2026-1482 | Certificate Undefined Status due to Dates Stored as Strings | accepted | Low | |
| F-2026-1482 | Floating Pragma | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2026-1482 | Fields Duplication | mitigated | Observation | |
| F-2026-1482 | Complete Certificate Change Possibility | mitigated | Observation |
Appendix 1. Definitions
Severities
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. |
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.
Potential Risks
The "Potential Risks" section identifies issues that are not direct security vulnerabilities but could still affect the project’s performance, reliability, or user trust. These risks arise from design choices, architectural decisions, or operational practices that, while not immediately exploitable, may lead to problems under certain conditions. Additionally, potential risks can impact the quality of the audit itself, as they may involve external factors or components beyond the scope of the audit, leading to incomplete assessments or oversight of key areas. This section aims to provide a broader perspective on factors that could affect the project's long-term security, functionality, and the comprehensiveness of the audit findings.
Appendix 2. Scope
The scope of the project includes the following smart contracts from the provided repository:
Scope Details | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://gitlab.sre.ideasoft.io/adi-foundation/uacuae/smart-contracts→ |
| Initial Commit | 7ec2c3698ad4f72f585bb9ec4ea5b33e0c6af17a |
| Final Commit | c7f95a660c384e1909d00bf84b59e7217b55ab69 |
| Whitepaper | https://docs.adi.foundation/whitepaper→ |
| Requirements | https://docs.adi.foundation→ |
| Technical Requirements | README.md |
Scope Details
- Initial Commit
- 7ec2c3698ad4f72f585bb9ec4ea5b33e0c6af17a
- Final Commit
- c7f95a660c384e1909d00bf84b59e7217b55ab69
- Whitepaper
- https://docs.adi.foundation/whitepaper→
- Requirements
- https://docs.adi.foundation→
- Technical Requirements
- README.md
Assets in Scope
Appendix 3. Additional Valuables
Additional Recommendations
The smart contracts in the scope of this audit could benefit from the introduction of automatic emergency actions for critical activities, such as unauthorized operations like ownership changes or proxy upgrades, as well as unexpected fund manipulations, including large withdrawals or minting events. Adding such mechanisms would enable the protocol to react automatically to unusual activity, ensuring that the contract remains secure and functions as intended.
To improve functionality, these emergency actions could be designed to trigger under specific conditions, such as:
Detecting changes to ownership or critical permissions.
Monitoring large or unexpected transactions and minting events.
Pausing operations when irregularities are identified.
These enhancements would provide an added layer of security, making the contract more robust and better equipped to handle unexpected situations while maintaining smooth operations.
Frameworks and Methodologies
This security assessment was conducted in alignment with recognised penetration testing standards, methodologies and guidelines, including the NIST SP 800-115 – Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment →, and the Penetration Testing Execution Standard (PTES) →, These assets provide a structured foundation for planning, executing, and documenting technical evaluations such as vulnerability assessments, exploitation activities, and security code reviews. Hacken’s internal penetration testing methodology extends these principles to Web2 and Web3 environments to ensure consistency, repeatability, and verifiable outcomes.