Introduction
We express our gratitude to the Dexola team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
Dexola is a blockchain development consultancy, empowered by trinetix.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | Ethereum, Solana, Tron, BNB Chain, Bitcoin, Polygon, Fantom, Others |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC721 token, ERC2981 royalties |
| Timeline | 03/11/2023 - 21/11/2023 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/dexolacom/comebackalive-smart-contracts/tree/main→ |
| Commit | 552155d |
Review Scope
- Commit
- 552155d
Audit Summary
10/10
100%
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 Dexola |
| Audited By | Hacken |
| Website | https://dexola.com/→ |
| Changelog | 10/11/2023 – Initial Review |
| 21/11/2023 - Second Review |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Dexola
- Audited By
- Hacken
- Website
- https://dexola.com/→
- Changelog
- 10/11/2023 – Initial Review
- 21/11/2023 - Second Review
System Overview
The Separate Assault CryptBrigade is an ERC721 NFT single contract with the following features:
Maximum supply of 10000 tokens.
Mint upon purchase at 0.05 ETH per token.
ERC2981 royalties.
Privileged roles
Owner: contract owner who can activate the sales, withdraw native tokens from the contract, update base and token URI, update base and token royalties.
Executive Summary
Documentation quality
The total Documentation quality score is 10 out of 10.
Functional requirements are provided.
Technical description is provided.
Code quality
The total Code quality score is 10 out of 10.
The development environment is configured.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 100% (branch coverage).
Deployment and basic user interactions are covered with tests.
Security score
Upon auditing, the code was found to contain 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, and 2 low severity issues. Out of these, 2 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 10. This score reflects the combined evaluation of documentation, code quality, test coverage, and security aspects of the project.
Risks
Royalties are introduced via ERC2981, but they are not enforced on-chain. Therefore, their off-chain management cannot be reviewed in this audit.
ERC721 NFTs can be transferred without the payment of royalties since they are implemented off-chain.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2023-1118 | Missing URI length check | fixed | Low | |
| F-2023-1117 | Redundant check consumes extra Gas | fixed | Low | |
| I-2023-0306 | Unfollowed explicit uint best practice | fixed | Observation |
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/dexolacom/comebackalive-smart-contracts/tree/main→ |
| Commit | 552155d |
| Whitepaper | Not provided |
| Requirements | Provided |
| Technical Requirements | Provided |
Scope Details
- Commit
- 552155d
- Whitepaper
- Not provided
- Requirements
- Provided
- Technical Requirements
- Provided