The Hacken 2025 Yearly Security ReportCovers major Web3 breaches, their root causes, prevention insights, and key regulatory trends for 2026.
Learn more

RWA.Inc

Audit name:

[SCA] RWA.Inc | ERC20 | Dec2023

Date:

Jan 4, 2024

Table of Content

→Introduction
→Audit Summary
→Document Information
→System Overview
→Executive Summary
→Risks
→Findings
→Appendix 1. Severity Definitions
→Appendix 2. Scope
→Disclaimer

Want a comprehensive audit report like this?

Introduction

We express our gratitude to the RWA.Inc team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.

RWA.inc is an ERC20 token that facilitates seamless transfers, balance inquiries, approval allowances and several other accessibility-related functionalities.

titlecontent
PlatformEVM
LanguageSolidity
TagsERC20
Timeline21/12/2023 - 4/1/2024
Methodologyhttps://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→

    Last Review Scope

    Repositoryhttps://github.com/RWAinc/Testcase→
    Commitc64874c6f97098922eac972a75371dc22e2ad96c

    Audit Summary

    Total9.5/10
    Security Score

    10/10

    Test Coverage

    91.67%

    Code Quality Score

    9/10

    Documentation Quality Score

    10/10

    5Total Findings
    4Resolved
    1Accepted
    0Mitigated

    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

    NameSmart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for RWA.Inc
    Audited ByCarlo Parisi, Roman Tiutiun
    Approved ByAtaberk Yavuzer
    Websitehttps://www.rwa.inc/→
    Changelog4/1/2024 - Preliminary Report

    • Document

      Name
      Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for RWA.Inc
      Audited By
      Carlo Parisi, Roman Tiutiun
      Approved By
      Ataberk Yavuzer
      Website
      https://www.rwa.inc/→
      Changelog
      4/1/2024 - Preliminary Report

    System Overview

    RWA.inc is an ERC20 token with multiple functionalities such as Approval, Allowance, Balance Inquiry, Access Controls and Token Metadata.

    It has the following attributes:

    • Name: RWA

    • Symbol: $RWA

    • Decimals: 18

    • Total supply: 1B tokens.

    Privileged roles

    • The owner of RWA.inc can update the router address, transfer ownership and update exemption restriction for trading the token.

    • The project owner can receive tokens mistakenly sent to the contracts.

    Executive Summary

    Documentation quality

    The total Documentation Quality score is 10 out of 10.

    • Functional requirements are provided

    • Technical description is provided.

    • NatSpec is present.

    Code quality

    The total Code Quality score is 9 out of 10.

    • The code duplicates commonly known contracts instead of reusing them.

    Test coverage

    Code coverage of the project is 91.67% (branch coverage)

    • Deployment and basic user interactions are covered with tests.

    Security score

    Upon auditing, the code was found to contain 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, and 2 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 9.5. This score reflects the combined evaluation of documentation, code quality, test coverage, and security aspects of the project.

    Scoring Methodologyarrow right

    Risks

    There are external contracts which interacts with RWA.inc contract, such as IRouter and IFactory. This interactions could lead to unexpected consequences that are not predictable in this audit since these contracts are excluded from the audit scope.

    The audited code appears unfinalized since there are comments throughout the contracts that describe the current code as for testing instead of production.

    The contract is centralized. Before the trading is enabled, only authorized parties can transfer the token.

    The contracts are a fork of OpenZeppelin contracts and libraries, customizations are performed in the function _transfer() in direct contrast to OpenZeppelin's advice to modify only the function _update() for transfer related customizations “All customizations that are required for transfers, mints, and burns should be done by overriding this function.”

    The functionality that limits trading while not enabled will cause transaction to cost more gas even after the trading has been enabled.

    Findings

    Code
    ―
    Title
    Status
    Severity
    F-2023-0310Token transfers may not be compatible for non-standard ERC20 tokens
    fixed

    Low
    F-2023-0258Unnecessary receive() function
    fixed

    Low
    F-2023-0315Owner can renounce the ownership of the contract
    accepted

    Observation
    F-2023-0257Missing zero address check
    fixed

    Observation
    F-2023-0256Floating pragma
    fixed

    Observation
    1-5 of 5 findings

    Identify vulnerabilities in your smart contracts.

    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

    Repositoryhttps://github.com/RWAinc/Testcase→
    Commitc64874c6f97098922eac972a75371dc22e2ad96c
    Requirementshttps://github.com/RWAinc/Testcase/blob/main/README.md→
    Technical Requirementshttps://github.com/RWAinc/Testcase/blob/main/README.md→

    Contracts in Scope

    contracts
    Defimint.sol - contracts › Defimint.sol

    Disclaimer