Audit name:
[SCA] Duck Gang | Duckgang-Contracts | May2024
Date:
Jun 7, 2024
Table of Content
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the Duck Gang team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
Duck Gang is a decentralized staking and rewards system comprising three main smart contracts: NativeStaking, Points, and RewardsManager. This system allows users to stake ETH, earn rewards in ERC20 tokens, and manage reward multipliers using NFTs and other tokens.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | EVM |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | Staking, ERC20 |
| Timeline | 22/05/2024 - 05/06/2024 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/TimeleapLabs/duckgang-contracts→ |
| Commit | 75b7343 |
Review Scope
- Commit
- 75b7343
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 Duck Gang |
| Audited By | Kaan Caglan |
| Approved By | Ataberk Yavuzer |
| Website | https://www.duckgang.com/→ |
| Changelog | 24/05/2024 - Preliminary Report |
| Changelog | 05/06/2024 - Final Report |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Duck Gang
- Audited By
- Kaan Caglan
- Approved By
- Ataberk Yavuzer
- Website
- https://www.duckgang.com/→
- Changelog
- 24/05/2024 - Preliminary Report
- Changelog
- 05/06/2024 - Final Report
System Overview
A decentralized staking and rewards system comprising three main smart contracts: NativeStaking, Points, and RewardsManager. This system allows users to stake ETH, earn rewards in ERC20 tokens, and manage reward multipliers using NFTs and other tokens.
NativeStaking
A staking contract allowing users to stake ETH and earn rewards in the form of ERC20 tokens.
Points
An ERC20 token contract representing points that can be minted and burned by game contracts.
RewardsManager
A contract that manages reward multipliers for NFTs.
Roles
REWARDS_MANAGER: The role that can give additional rewards to users, typically used by an Oracle.
DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE: The role that can end the staking period, add rewards, and recover tokens from the contract.
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.
Best practices are applied.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 100% (branch coverage)
All branches in scope are covered by 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
If there is not enough reward token balance in the contract, user funds can be locked.
Scope Definition and Security Guarantees: The audit does not cover all code in the repository. Contracts outside the audit scope may introduce vulnerabilities, potentially impacting the overall security due to the interconnected nature of smart contracts.
Owner's Unrestricted State Modification: The absence of restrictions on state variable modifications by the owner leads to arbitrary changes, affecting contract integrity and user trust.
Findings
transfer or send Instead Of call To Send Native Assetsimmutableaddress(0) Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2024-3249 | Highly Excessive Authorization | fixed | Low | |
| F-2024-3241 | Use Of transfer or send Instead Of call To Send Native Assets | fixed | Low | |
| F-2024-3248 | Unneeded initializations of uint256 and bool variable to 0/false | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-3247 | Owner Can Renounce Ownership | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-3246 | Floating Pragma | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-3245 | State Variables Only Set in The Constructor Should Be Declared immutable | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-3244 | Unused Error Definition | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-3243 | Unused State Variables | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-3242 | Cache State Variable Array Length In For Loop | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-3240 | Missing checks for address(0) | 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/TimeleapLabs/duckgang-contracts→ |
| Commit | 75b7343 |
| Whitepaper | N/A |
| Requirements | https://github.com/TimeleapLabs/duckgang-contracts/docs→ |
| Technical Requirements | https://github.com/TimeleapLabs/duckgang-contracts/docs→ |
Scope Details
- Commit
- 75b7343
- Whitepaper
- N/A
- Technical Requirements
- https://github.com/TimeleapLabs/duckgang-contracts/docs→