Introduction
We express our gratitude to the Multipool team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
The Multipool is a basic ERC20 token contract with mintable and burnable features.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | EVM |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC20, ERC20Burnable |
| Timeline | 02/05/2024 - 03/05/2024 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/Multipool-Finance/mul-token→ |
| Commit | f44dbbe |
Review Scope
- Commit
- f44dbbe
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 Multipool |
| Audited By | Eren Gonen |
| Approved By | Ataberk Yavuzer |
| Website | https://whitepaper.multipool.finance/→ |
| Changelog | 06/05/2024 - Preliminary Report |
| 09/05/2024 - Final Report |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Multipool
- Audited By
- Eren Gonen
- Approved By
- Ataberk Yavuzer
- Changelog
- 06/05/2024 - Preliminary Report
- 09/05/2024 - Final Report
System Overview
Multipool is a ERC20 token with the following contract:
Multipool — simple ERC-20 token that mints all initial supply to a deployer with the burning feature. Additional minting is allowed.
It has the following attributes:
Name: Multipool
Symbol: MUL
Decimals: 18
Total supply: 100m tokens.
Privileged roles
The admin of the contract can arbitrarily transfer the admin role to another address and mint 2 million tokens to their address annually.
Executive Summary
Documentation quality
The total Documentation quality score is 10 out of 10.
Functional requirements are provided
Technical description is not provided.
Code quality
The total Code quality score is 10 out of 10.
The development environment is configured.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 100%
Everything covered with tests
Security score
Upon auditing, the code was found to contain 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, and 0 low severity issues. Out of these, 0 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
Centralized Minting to a Single Address: The project concentrates minting tokens in a single address, raising the risk of fund mismanagement or theft, especially if key storage security is compromised.
Centralized Control of Minting Process: The token contract’s design allows for centralized control over the minting process, posing a risk of unauthorized token issuance, potentially diluting the token value and undermining trust in the project's economic governance.
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.
Solidity Version Compatibility and Cross-Chain Deployment: The project utilizes Solidity version 0.8.24, which includes the introduction of the PUSH0 (0x5f) opcode. This opcode is currently supported on the Ethereum mainnet but may not be universally supported across other blockchain networks. Consequently, deploying the contract on chains other than the Ethereum mainnet, such as certain Layer 2 (L2) chains or alternative networks, might lead to compatibility issues or execution errors due to the lack of support for the PUSH0 opcode. In scenarios where deployment on various chains is anticipated, selecting an appropriate Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) version that is widely supported across these networks is crucial to avoid potential operational disruptions or deployment failures.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2024-2050 | Redundant Initialization Of ´yearsMinted´ Variable | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-2049 | Missing Events | fixed | Observation | |
| F-2024-2048 | Single-Step Ownership Transfer | 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/Multipool-Finance/mul-token→ |
| Commit | f44dbbe56e30efdeb83423417b9dea5562d868b9 |
| Whitepaper | https://whitepaper.multipool.finance/→ |
| Requirements | N/A |
| Technical Requirements | N/A |
Scope Details
- Commit
- f44dbbe56e30efdeb83423417b9dea5562d868b9
- Whitepaper
- https://whitepaper.multipool.finance/→
- Requirements
- N/A
- Technical Requirements
- N/A