Introduction
We express our gratitude to the Astra Nova team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
REVIVE Token is a ERC20 token with custom burning functionality, transfer controls, and whitelisting for pre-TGE campaign.
Document | |
|---|---|
| Name | Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Astra Nova |
| Audited By | Seher Saylik, Kornel Światłowski |
| Approved By | Ataberk Yavuzer |
| Website | https://astranova.world/→ |
| Changelog | 24/10/2025 - Preliminary Report |
| 06/11/2025 - Final Report | |
| Platform | BSC |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC20, Upgradable |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Astra Nova
- Audited By
- Seher Saylik, Kornel Światłowski
- Approved By
- Ataberk Yavuzer
- Website
- https://astranova.world/→
- Changelog
- 24/10/2025 - Preliminary Report
- 06/11/2025 - Final Report
- Platform
- BSC
- Language
- Solidity
- Tags
- ERC20, Upgradable
- Methodology
- https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Initial scope | https://bscscan.com/address/0xfb578047aba46ae0b20c0e074ac382e3817b7a9e#code→ |
| Repository | https://github.com/Astra-Nova/rvv-token-contracts-v1→ |
| Initial commit | 373989d4ea6e07be8c6fdc2cfc05e2247793d19f |
| Remediation commit | 5b5221f23c9407e5abbdd75c271bc3e1d8e39886 |
| Deployed contract | https://bscscan.com/address/0x03b6df017929f735eb3e8290ca282fa66e351226#code→ |
Review Scope
- Initial commit
- 373989d4ea6e07be8c6fdc2cfc05e2247793d19f
- Remediation commit
- 5b5221f23c9407e5abbdd75c271bc3e1d8e39886
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
Functional requirements are present, but only at a high-level.
Basic system description is provided.
Tokenomics is provided and roles are described in the documentation.
Technical description is limited.
No run instructions.
No technical specification.
NatSpec is sufficient.
Code quality
The development environment is configured.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 94.12% (branch coverage).
Deployment and basic user interactions are covered with tests.
Missing test run instructions.
System Overview
REVIVE Token is an upgradeable ERC20 token (symbol: RVV) designed to support a controlled pre-TGE (Token Generation Event) campaign. The contract mints a fixed supply of 10 billion tokens to a multisig treasury wallet upon initialization. The core functionality centers around time-gated transfer restrictions: before a configurable timestamp, only whitelisted addresses can transfer tokens, ensuring controlled distribution during the early campaign phase. After this timestamp expires, transfers become unrestricted for all holders.
Privileged roles
The REVIVE Token contract implements multiple privileged roles with distinct capabilities:
owner- Inherited fromOwnableUpgradeable, with administrative control over:Whitelist Management: Add or remove addresses individually or in batches via
addToWhitelist(),removeFromWhitelist(), andbatchSetWhitelisted()Transfer Timing Control: Modify the
transferAllowedTimestampthroughsetTransferAllowedTimestamp(), with safeguards preventing extension beyond ETA (original timestamp + 1 day) after the initial period expires
treasuryWallet- A designated multisig wallet (intended to be 4-of-6 Gnosis Safe):Token Custody: Receives the entire initial supply of 10 billion tokens upon initialization
Protected by onlyMultisig Modifier: Though defined, this modifier is not currently utilized by any functions
burnWallet- A dedicated address authorized for token destruction:Burn Authority: Exclusively authorized to call
burnFromBurnWallet()to burn tokens from its own balance
DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE- Standard OpenZeppelinAccessControlUpgradeablerole:Granted to Deployer: Assigned to
msg.senderduring initializationCurrently Unused: No contract functions check for this role, suggesting it may be reserved for future upgrades
Potential Risks
Centralized Minting to a Single Address: The project concentrates minting tokens in a single address, raising the risk of fund mismanagement or theft, especially if key storage security is compromised.
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.
Absence of Upgrade Window Constraints: The contract suite allows for immediate upgrades without a mandatory review or waiting period, increasing the risk of rapid deployment of malicious or flawed code, potentially compromising the system's integrity and user assets.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2025-1371 | setTransferAllowedTimestamp Logic Permanently Locks Timestamp Updates After 1 Day Past TGE | fixed | Low | |
| F-2025-1371 | Misleading NatSpec Comment on _transferAllowedTimestamp Parameter | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2025-1370 | Missing _disableInitializers() in Upgradable Contract Constructor | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2025-1370 | Mismatch Between NatSpec Description and Function Logic in burnFromBurnWallet | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2025-1370 | Unused onlyMultisig Modifier | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2025-1369 | Duplicate Access Control Implementations Increase Gas Costs | 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 | |
|---|---|
| Initial scope | https://bscscan.com/address/0xfb578047aba46ae0b20c0e074ac382e3817b7a9e#code→ |
| Repository | https://github.com/Astra-Nova/rvv-token-contracts-v1→ |
| Initial commit | 373989d4ea6e07be8c6fdc2cfc05e2247793d19f |
| Remedation commit | 5b5221f23c9407e5abbdd75c271bc3e1d8e39886 |
| Whitepaper | N/A |
| Requirements | NatSpec |
| Technical Requirements | NatSpec |
| Deployed contract | https://bscscan.com/address/0x03b6df017929f735eb3e8290ca282fa66e351226#code→ |
Scope Details
- Initial commit
- 373989d4ea6e07be8c6fdc2cfc05e2247793d19f
- Remedation commit
- 5b5221f23c9407e5abbdd75c271bc3e1d8e39886
- Whitepaper
- N/A
- Requirements
- NatSpec
- Technical Requirements
- NatSpec
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.