- Hacken
- Audits
- hunter-biden-s-laptop
- [SCA] LAPTOP | Token Audit| Apr2026
Audit name:
[SCA] LAPTOP | Token Audit| Apr2026
Date:
Apr 23, 2026
Table of Content
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the Hunter Biden's Laptop team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
The LaptopOFT is a smart contract, a LayerZero-based Omnichain Fungible Token that enables cross-chain transfer of the LAPTOP token through a burn-and-mint mechanism with a fixed supply of 1,000,000,000 tokens initially minted on the Base chain
Document | |
|---|---|
| Name | Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Hunter Biden's Laptop |
| Audited By | Kornel Światłowski |
| Approved By | Ivan Bondar |
| Website | - |
| Changelog | 20/04/2026 - Preliminary Report |
| 22/04/2026 - Preliminary Report | |
| Platform | Base |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | Bridge, ERC20, OFT |
| Methodology | https://docs.hacken.io/methodologies/smart-contracts→ |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Hunter Biden's Laptop
- Audited By
- Kornel Światłowski
- Approved By
- Ivan Bondar
- Website
- -
- Changelog
- 20/04/2026 - Preliminary Report
- 22/04/2026 - Preliminary Report
- Platform
- Base
- Language
- Solidity
- Tags
- Bridge, ERC20, OFT
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/web3-consulting/laptop→ |
| Commit | 2d7caa020082b38cbc576029cd7cf0e16405db97 |
| Final Commit | f33bbca9226225b6238263ce1897734e6463b212 |
Review Scope
- Commit
- 2d7caa020082b38cbc576029cd7cf0e16405db97
- Final Commit
- f33bbca9226225b6238263ce1897734e6463b212
Audit Summary
The system users should acknowledge all the risks summed up in the risks section of the report
Documentation quality
Functional requirements are partially missed.
Technical description is provided.
Code quality
The development environment is configured.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 60% (branch coverage).
Deployment and basic user interactions are covered with tests.
System Overview
LaptopOFT is a native LayerZero Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) that enables the LAPTOP token to exist across multiple chains while preserving a single global supply of 1,000,000,000 tokens. The contract inherits from LayerZero's OFT standard, which implements a burn-and-mint mechanism for cross-chain transfers - tokens are burned on the source chain and minted on the destination chain. The initial total supply is minted exclusively on the Base chain during deployment, determined by the constructor's chain ID check.
Privileged roles
The contract uses OpenZeppelin's Ownable2Step as its access control mechanism. The owner role is assigned to the _delegate address at deployment and controls all administrative functions inherited from the LayerZero OFT stack:
transferOwnership(address)- Transfers the contract owner role to a new address.renounceOwnership()- Permanently removes the owner, disabling all admin functions.setPeer(uint32, bytes32)- Registers a trusted remote OFT address for a given chain, enabling cross-chain minting from that source.setDelegate(address)- Changes the LayerZero endpoint delegate who can configure messaging parameters at the protocol level.setEnforcedOptions(EnforcedOptionParam[])- Sets mandatory execution options (gas limits, native value) for outbound messages per destination chain.setMsgInspector(address)- Sets an optional contract that inspects outbound messages and options before sending.setPreCrime(address)- Sets the PreCrime contract address used for simulating and validating inbound messages before execution.
Potential Risks
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, especially during critical operations like minting phases.
Insufficient Multi-signature Controls for Critical Functions: The lack of multi-signature requirements for key operations centralizes decision-making power, increasing vulnerability to single points of failure or malicious insider actions, potentially leading to unauthorized transactions or configuration changes.
Absence of Time-lock Mechanisms for Critical Operations: Without time-locks on critical operations, there is no buffer to review or revert potentially harmful actions, increasing the risk of rapid exploitation and irreversible changes.
Single Points of Failure and Control: The project is fully or partially centralized, introducing single points of failure and control. This centralization can lead to vulnerabilities in decision-making and operational processes, making the system more susceptible to targeted attacks or manipulation.
Administrative Key Control Risks: The digital contract architecture relies on administrative keys for critical operations. Centralized control over these keys presents a significant security risk, as compromise or misuse can lead to unauthorized actions or loss of funds.
Cross-Chain Bridging Configuration and Operational Risk: The bridging process depends on the correct configuration of peer addresses, DVN selections, enforced gas options, and shared decimals across all connected chains. Misconfiguration at any layer can result in permanent token loss or supply desynchronization, as tokens burned on the source chain cannot be recovered if the destination mint fails to execute.
Irrecoverable Token Loss on Zero-Address Destination: Mints to address(0) are silently redirected to address(0xdead) instead of reverting. Tokens burned on the source chain become permanently unrecoverable with no error signal.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2026-1618 | Single DVN Configuration Creates Cross Chain Validation Single Point of Failure | fixed | Low | |
| F-2026-1618 | Test Chain Logic in Production Code | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2026-1617 | Missing Two Step Ownership Pattern | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2026-1617 | Floating Pragma | fixed | Observation |
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 | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/web3-consulting/laptop→ |
| Commit | 2d7caa020082b38cbc576029cd7cf0e16405db97 |
| Final Commit | f33bbca9226225b6238263ce1897734e6463b212 |
| Whitepaper | Not provided |
| Requirements | NatSpec |
| Technical Requirements | README.md |
Scope Details
- Commit
- 2d7caa020082b38cbc576029cd7cf0e16405db97
- Final Commit
- f33bbca9226225b6238263ce1897734e6463b212
- Whitepaper
- Not provided
- Requirements
- NatSpec
- Technical Requirements
- README.md
Assets in Scope
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.