Audit name:
[SCA] Betswap.gg / ERC20 / Dec2023
Date:
Dec 5, 2023
Table of Content
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the Betswap.gg team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
Betswap is a protocol that allows users to migrate from an old ERC-20 to a new ERC-20 that follows the OFT standard from LayerZero.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | Ethereum |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC20 |
| Timeline | 13/11/2023 - 04/12/2023 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/pbnather/OFT-migration→ |
| Commit | 75c715e81d0df9b44a6c16a3c966fb58a0bdb91e |
Review Scope
- Commit
- 75c715e81d0df9b44a6c16a3c966fb58a0bdb91e
Audit Summary
10/10
59.38%
10/10
10/10
The system users should acknowledge all the risks summed up in the risks section of the report
Document Information
This report may contain confidential information about IT systems and the intellectual property of the Customer, as well as information about potential vulnerabilities and methods of their exploitation.
The report can be disclosed publicly after prior consent by another Party. Any subsequent publication of this report shall be without mandatory consent.
Document | |
|---|---|
| Name | Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Betswap.gg |
| Audited By | |
| Approved By | |
| Website | https://hacken.io→ |
| Changelog | 30/01/2024 - Preliminary Report |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Betswap.gg
- Audited By
- Approved By
- Website
- https://hacken.io→
- Changelog
- 30/01/2024 - Preliminary Report
System Overview
PROJECT_NAME is a staking protocol with the following contracts:
Token — simple ERC-20 token that mints all initial supply to a deployer. Additional minting is not allowed.
It has the following attributes:
Name: TokenName
Symbol: TST
Decimals: 18
Total supply: 100m tokens.
Staking — a contract that rewards users for staking their tokens. APY depends on the tokens provided by the owner and could not be calculated before reward tokens are deposited.
Privileged roles
The owner of the contract can arbitrarily add, delete and modify the addresses stored. It is therefore entitled to impersonate or change the logic of critical components of the system at will.
The owner can revoke a vesting if upon creation such a parameter was provided. On revoking all vested tokens till the moment are automatically released to the beneficiary account.
Executive Summary
Documentation quality
The total Documentation quality score is 10 out of 10.
Technical documentation is not present, but since most of this is a fork of LayerZero it can be derived from there.
Functional Requirements are present.
NatSpec is present
Code quality
The total Code quality score is 10 out of 10.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 59.38% (branch coverage).
Forked contracts are not tested deeply.
Security score
Upon auditing, the code was found to contain 1 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, and 4 low severity issues. Out of these, 5 issues have been addressed and resolved, leading to a security score of 10 out of 10.
All identified issues are detailed in the “Findings” section of this report.
Summary
The comprehensive audit of the customer's smart contract yields an overall score of 8.4. This score reflects the combined evaluation of documentation, code quality, test coverage, and security aspects of the project.
Risks
The contract owner possesses significant control over the contract, which includes the ability to blacklist users from migrating the old token to the new one, grant users the possibility to migrate even after the deadline has passed, change the exchange rate between the old token and the new one, set the deadline for the end of the migration, pause the migration contract, withdraw any ERC20 token from the migration contract and mint and infinite supply of the new token.
The variable exchangeRate indicates the exchange rate between the old token that needs to be migrated and the new token, this value can be changed, and the team has the responsibility to set a proper value for this variable.
Part of the documentation is missing and needs to be derived from the forked repository.
There are a lot of interactions with out-of-scope contracts such as LayerZeroReceiver.sol, LayerZeroUserApplicationConfig.sol, and LayerZeroEndpoint.sol, these contracts were not included in the scope but might have an impact on the execution of the code.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2023-1580 | Unrestricted Access to Minting Functions | fixed | Critical | |
| F-2023-1584 | Unrestricted token withdrawal in emergencyWithdraw() function | fixed | Low | |
| F-2023-1583 | Deadline vulnerability in the require condition | fixed | Low | |
| F-2023-158 | Pragma mismatch in OFTMintable.sol: non-overriding mint function in lower pragma versions. | fixed | Low | |
| F-2023-158 | Implementation of indexing for events is absent in the Migration contract | fixed | Low | |
| I-2023-041 | Limited token burning flexibility in the OFTMintable contract | fixed | Observation | |
| I-2023-0414 | Floating pragma | fixed | Observation |
Identify vulnerabilities in your smart contracts.
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://github.com/pbnather/OFT-migration→ |
| Commit | 75c715e81d0df9b44a6c16a3c966fb58a0bdb91e |
| Whitepaper | Provided |
| Requirements | Provided |
| Technical Requirements | Provided |
Scope Details
- Commit
- 75c715e81d0df9b44a6c16a3c966fb58a0bdb91e
- Whitepaper
- Provided
- Requirements
- Provided
- Technical Requirements
- Provided