- Hacken
- Audits
- lunarcrush
- [SCA] LunarCRUSH | ZRC token | Apr2023
Audit name:
[SCA] LunarCRUSH | ZRC token | Apr2023
Date:
May 1, 2023
Table of Content
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the LunarCRUSH team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
LunarCrush provides social intelligence to the cryptocurrency industry.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | Zilliqa |
| Language | Scilla |
| Tags | ZRC2 Utility |
| Timeline | 13/04/2023 - 03/05/2023 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/Zilliqa/zilliqa-developer→ |
| Commit | db6b127 |
Review Scope
- Commit
- db6b127
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 LunarCRUSH |
| Audited By | Hacken |
| Website | https://lunarcrush.com/→ |
| Changelog | 20/04/2023 - Initial Review |
| 03/05/2023 - Second Review |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for LunarCRUSH
- Audited By
- Hacken
- Website
- https://lunarcrush.com/→
- Changelog
- 20/04/2023 - Initial Review
- 03/05/2023 - Second Review
System Overview
LunarCrush is a decentralized social analytics platform that distills web and social media activity into institutional-grade analytics for all things crypto with the following contract:
BurnTokensAnyZRC2 — the contract aims to allow users to burn ZRC2 tokens.
Privileged roles
The owner of the BurnTokensAnyZRC2 contract can pause or unpause the whole contract, or specific ZRC2 token address.
The owner of the BurnTokensAnyZRC2 contract can transfer ownership to a new address.
The owner of the BurnTokensAnyZRC2 contract can change the burn cancel delay.
Executive Summary
Documentation quality
The total Documentation quality score is 10 out of 10.
Functional and technical requirements are provided and well-describe the system.
Code quality
The total Code quality score is 10 out of 10.
Code is well-designed and organized.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 100% (branch coverage).
Deployment and basic user interactions are covered with tests.
Negative cases are covered.
Security score
Upon auditing, the code was found to contain 0 critical, 1 high, 2 medium, and 2 low severity issues. Out of these, 4 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
Minimal burn cancel duration is not set-up, so in case of zero value - functionality of cancels would not work.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2023-0431 | Requirements Violation | fixed | High | |
| F-2023-0433 | Requirements Violation | mitigated | Medium | |
| F-2023-0432 | CEI Pattern Violation | fixed | Medium | |
| F-2023-0435 | Unused Error | fixed | Low | |
| F-2023-0434 | Missing Events | fixed | Low |
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/Zilliqa/zilliqa-developer→ |
| Commit | db6b127 |
| Whitepaper | Provided→ |
| Requirements | Provided→ |
| Technical Requirements | Provided→ |