The Hacken 2025 Yearly Security ReportCovers major Web3 breaches, their root causes, prevention insights, and key regulatory trends for 2026.
Learn more

Dlicom

Audit name:

[SCA] Dlicom | Token | Feb2026

Date:

Feb 13, 2026

Table of Content

→Introduction
→Audit Summary
→System Overview
→Potential Risks
→Findings
→Appendix 1. Definitions
→Appendix 2. Scope
→Appendix 3. Additional Valuables
→Disclaimer

Want a comprehensive audit report like this?

Introduction

We express our gratitude to the Dlicom team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.

Dlicom is an ERC20 token with minting and burning capability. It also includes a switch for a marketLaunch.

Document

NameSmart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Dlicom
Audited ByDavid Camps Novi
Approved ByOlesia Bilenka
Websitehttps://dlicom.io/→
Changelog06/02/2026 - Preliminary Report
13/02/2026 - Final Report
PlatformBase
LanguageSolidity
TagsFungible Token; Centralization; Upgradable
Methodologyhttps://docs.hacken.io/methodologies/smart-contracts→

Review Scope

Repositoryhttps://github.com/spl4bs/dlicom-token-sc→
Commitc1bd927

Audit Summary

3Total Findings
0Resolved
3Accepted
0Mitigated

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 provided via NatSpec but no further system description and requirements.

  • Technical description is missing.

Code quality

  • The development environment is configured.

Test coverage

Code coverage of the project is 0% (branch coverage).

  • No tests were provided

System Overview

Dlicom is an ERC20 token with minting and burning capability. It also includes a switch for a marketLaunch.

The system consists of the following contracts:

  • DLICOM - ERC20 with minting and burning capability, which also includes roles via AccessControlUpgradeable

  • AccessControlUpgradeable - contract to manage the system roles of the DLICOM token contract.

Privileged roles

  • DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE - can setup the rest of the system roles via AccessControlUpgradeable, use burnSupplyFrom() to burn tokens from any address and decrease the token MAX_SUPPLY and turn on the marketLaunch.

  • MINTER_ROLE - can mint tokens to any given address, limited to reaching the MAX_SUPPLY of the token.

Potential Risks

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.

The system implements a custom AccessControlUpgradeable contract version, which updated the public visibility of hasRole() to internal. It should be noted that performing this change will limit the capacity for any external source to retrieve the required information since will fail to be accessible via ABI. This may also result in failed compatibility with other systems expecting to be able to reach the result of hasRole() in order to get roles information. At the same time, changing hasRole() visibility to internal is not serving the purpose of hiding or protecting the roles data, since it can still be obtained.

Findings

Code
―
Title
Status
Severity
F-2026-1495Overprivileged Token Burning Capacity
accepted

Medium
F-2026-1495Missing _disableInitializers() in Upgradable Contract Constructor
accepted

Observation
F-2026-1495Floating Pragma
accepted

Observation
1-3 of 3 findings

Identify vulnerabilities in your smart contracts.

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

Repositoryhttps://github.com/spl4bs/dlicom-token-sc→
Commitc1bd927
WhitepaperN/A
Requirements
Technical Requirements

Assets in Scope

AccessControlUpgradeable.sol - AccessControlUpgradeable.sol
DLICom.sol - DLICom.sol

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.

Disclaimer

Dlicom audit by Hacken