- Hacken
- Audits
- blackcardcoin
- [SCA] BlackCardCoin | BEP20 | Apr2024
Audit name:
[SCA] BlackCardCoin | BEP20 | Apr2024
Date:
May 2, 2024
Table of Content
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the BlackCardCoin team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
BlackCard Coin is a groundbreaking BEP20 token.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | BEP |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC20 |
| Timeline | 15/04/2024 - 17/04/2024 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Deployed Link | https://bscscan.com/address/0x2940566Eb50F15129238f4Dc599ADC4F742D7d8E#code→ |
| Commit | n/a |
Review Scope
- Commit
- n/a
Audit Summary
10/10
100%
6/10
7/10
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 BlackCardCoin |
| Audited By | Turgay Arda Usman |
| Approved By | Grzegorz Trawinski |
| Website | https://blackcardcoin.com→ |
| Changelog | 16/04/2024 - Preliminary Report |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for BlackCardCoin
- Audited By
- Turgay Arda Usman
- Approved By
- Grzegorz Trawinski
- Website
- https://blackcardcoin.com→
- Changelog
- 16/04/2024 - Preliminary Report
System Overview
Black Card Coin is a BEP20 token with the following contracts:
BlackCardCoin — simple ERC-20 token. Additional minting is not allowed.
It has the following attributes:
Name: BlackCardCoin
Symbol: TST
Decimals: BCCoin
Total supply: 150m tokens.
Privileged roles
No roles defined.
Executive Summary
Documentation quality
The total Documentation Quality score is 6 out of 10.
Functional requirements are partially provided.
Technical description is mostly provided.
Code quality
The total Code Quality score is 6 out of 10.
The code duplicates commonly known contracts instead of reusing them.
Several template code patterns were found.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 0.0% (branch coverage)..
The code is already deployed.
Tests are not required with the projects with LoCs less than 250.
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 8.8. This score reflects the combined evaluation of documentation, code quality, test coverage, and security aspects of the project.
Risks
The project concentrates on minting tokens in a single address, raising the risk of fund mismanagement or theft, especially if key storage security is compromised.
The current implementation does not strictly follow the ERC20 standard, this may cause some risks in future interactions.
Findings
No vulnerabilities were foundAppendix 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://bscscan.com/address/0x2940566Eb50F15129238f4Dc599ADC4F742D7d8E#code→ |
| Commit | n/a |
| Whitepaper | https://download.blackcardcoin.com/Whitepaper.pdf→ |
| Requirements | https://download.blackcardcoin.com/Whitepaper.pdf→ |
| Technical Requirements | Natspec |
Scope Details
- Commit
- n/a
- Technical Requirements
- Natspec