Introduction
We express our gratitude to the BitNasdaq team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
BNQ is a simple ERC-20 token with the fixed total supply of 100B of token units.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | EVM |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC-20 |
| Timeline | 04/03/2024 - 06/03/2024 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/Bitnasdaq/BitNasdaq_BNQ_ETH_Contract→ |
| Commit | e2f13cdb5a62920bc7324d5ea2773a20fec22760 |
Review Scope
- Commit
- e2f13cdb5a62920bc7324d5ea2773a20fec22760
Audit Summary
10/10
N/A
9/10
8/10
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 BitNasdaq |
| Audited By | Maksym Fedorenko; Roman Tiutiun |
| Approved By | Grzegorz Trawinski |
| Website | http://bitnasdaq.com/→ |
| Changelog | 06/03/2024 - Preliminary Report |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for BitNasdaq
- Audited By
- Maksym Fedorenko; Roman Tiutiun
- Approved By
- Grzegorz Trawinski
- Website
- http://bitnasdaq.com/→
- Changelog
- 06/03/2024 - Preliminary Report
System Overview
BitNasdaq is a cryptocurrency exchange that provides a platform for trading various cryptocurrencies.
BNQ — ERC-20 token that mints all initial supply to a deployer. Additional minting is not allowed.
It has the following attributes:
Name: BitNasdaq
Symbol: BNQ
Decimals: 8
Total supply: 100B tokens.
Privileged roles
No privileged roles.
Executive Summary
Documentation quality
The total Documentation Quality score is 8 out of 10.
Functional requirements is not provided.
Technical description is not provided.
NatSpec is sufficient.
Code quality
The total Code Quality score is 9 out of 10.
Some best practices are violated:
Presence of unused code.
Unlocked solidity pragma version.
The development environment is not provided.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is N/A(branch coverage).
The audit scope does not exceed 250 LoC (Lines of Code), therefor according to the methodology the test code coverage does not affect the security score.
Security score
Upon auditing, the code was found to contain 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, and 0 low severity issues, 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 9.6. This score reflects the combined evaluation of documentation, code quality, test coverage, and security aspects of the project.
Risks
No risks were identified. The system matches the ERC-20 token behavior without any extensions.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2024-1048 | Floating pragma | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-1046 | Redundant _burn function | 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/Bitnasdaq/BitNasdaq_BNQ_ETH_Contract→ |
| Commit | e2f13cdb5a62920bc7324d5ea2773a20fec22760 |
| Whitepaper | NatSpec |
| Requirements | NatSpec |
| Technical Requirements | NatSpec |
Scope Details
- Commit
- e2f13cdb5a62920bc7324d5ea2773a20fec22760
- Whitepaper
- NatSpec
- Requirements
- NatSpec
- Technical Requirements
- NatSpec