Audit name:
[SCA] L7 | Token | Feb2024
Date:
Mar 24, 2024
Table of Content
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the L7 team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
LSD is a simple BEP-20 token which implements burning functionalities and whose total supply is fixed at 210m of token units.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | EVM |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | BEP-20 |
| Timeline | 06/02/2024 - 07/02/2024 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://bscscan.com/address/0xcd1b51b87a8a7137d6421ba5a976225187a26777#code→ |
| Commit | - |
Review Scope
- Commit
- -
Audit Summary
10/10
100%
7/10
0/10
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 L7 |
| Audited By | Giovanni Franchi |
| Approved By | Turgay Arda Usman |
| Website | N/A |
| Changelog | 07/02/2024 - Preliminary Report && 19/02/2024 -Final Report |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for L7
- Audited By
- Giovanni Franchi
- Approved By
- Turgay Arda Usman
- Website
- N/A
- Changelog
- 07/02/2024 - Preliminary Report && 19/02/2024 -Final Report
System Overview
LSD is a BEP-20 that also implements OpenZeppelin burnable functionalities:
LSD Token — simple BEP-20 token that mints all initial supply to an address which is passed as a constructor parameter. Additional minting is not allowed.
It has the following attributes:
Name: LSD
Symbol: LSD
Decimals: 18
Total supply: 210m tokens.
Executive Summary
Documentation quality
The total Documentation Quality score is 0 out of 10.
Functional requirements are not provided.
Technical description is not provided.
NatSpecs are absent.
Code quality
The total Code Quality score is 7 out of 10.
Some best practises such as readability conventions and locked pragma are missed.
The development environment is not provided.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 100% (branch coverage).
Code coverage is not required under 250 locs.
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 8.4. This score reflects the combined evaluation of documentation, code quality, test coverage, and security aspects of the project.
Risks
No risks are identified
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2024-0795 | Obscure Numerical Notation in Token Supply | accepted | Observation | |
| F-2024-0794 | Floating pragma | accepted | 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://bscscan.com/address/0xcd1b51b87a8a7137d6421ba5a976225187a26777#code→ |
| Commit | N/A |
| Whitepaper | N/A |
| Requirements | N/A |
| Technical Requirements | N/A |
Scope Details
- Commit
- N/A
- Whitepaper
- N/A
- Requirements
- N/A
- Technical Requirements
- N/A