- Hacken
- Audits
- spielworks-gmbh
- [SCA] Wombat | Staking | Jun2023
Audit name:
[SCA] Wombat | Staking | Jun2023
Date:
Jun 10, 2023
Table of Content
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the Wombat team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
Wombat is a Web 3 Gaming Platform that empowers gamers to participate in the virtual economy, monetize playing time & achievements and adds a social dimension to gaming NFTs ownership The overall goal for the Wombat Web 3 Gaming Platform is to become a social gaming experience ("The Wombatverse") based upon NFTs.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | EVM |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC721, ERC1155, Staking |
| Timeline | 22/05/2023 - 12/06/2023 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/wombat-tech/evm-nft-staking-contract/→ |
| Commit | 3d7bb8772 |
Review Scope
- Commit
- 3d7bb8772
Audit Summary
10/10
94.12%
8/10
9/10
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 Wombat |
| Audited By | Hacken |
| Changelog | 29/05/2023 - Initial Review |
| 12/06/2023 - Second Review |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Wombat
- Audited By
- Hacken
- Changelog
- 29/05/2023 - Initial Review
- 12/06/2023 - Second Review
System Overview
Wombat — is a generic NFT smart contract that allows staking of both ERC721 and ERC1155 token with the following contracts:
Staking — a staking smart contract that allows staking both ERC721 and ERC1155 tokens. Withdrawals are possible only after a certain period of time set by the owner of the wallet.
SignatureStakingValidator — a smart contract, which uses the data argument to all staking operations to expect a signature that was created in the client backend and verifies it.
IStakeValidator — an interface for SignatureStakingValidator.
Privileged roles
Staking.sol :
Contract Owner :
Can set a validator address.
Executive Summary
Documentation quality
The total Documentation quality score is 9 out of 10.
Functional requirements are provided.
Project overview is detailed.
Use cases are described and detailed.
Project overview is detailed.
Technical description is inadequate.
Run instructions are not provided.
NatSpec is sufficient.
Technical specification is provided.
Code quality
The total Code quality score is 8 out of 10.
Best practice violation.
The development environment is not configured: run instructions are not provided.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 94.12% (branch coverage).
Deployment and basic user interactions are covered with tests.
Negative cases coverage is present.
Interactions by several users are tested.
Security score
Upon auditing, the code was found to contain 0 critical, 0 high, 1 medium, and 3 low severity issues. Out of these, 3 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 9.9. This score reflects the combined evaluation of documentation, code quality, test coverage, and security aspects of the project.
Risks
No potential security risks were found during the audit research.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2023-0261 | Best Practice Violation: Non Upgradeable Ownable Inheritance | mitigated | Medium | |
| F-2023-0264 | Missing Zero Address Validation | fixed | Low | |
| F-2023-0263 | Variable Shadowing | fixed | Low | |
| F-2023-0262 | Missing Events | fixed | Low | |
| I-2023-0083 | Style Guide Violation | unfixed | Observation | |
| I-2023-0082 | Style Guide Violation: Order Of Layout | fixed | Observation | |
| I-2023-0081 | Inefficient Gas Model | fixed | Observation | |
| I-2023-0080 | State Variables Default Visibility | 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/wombat-tech/evm-nft-staking-contract/→ |
| Commit | 3d7bb8772 |
| Whitepaper | Not provided |
| Requirements | Provided |
| Technical Requirements | Provided |
Scope Details
- Commit
- 3d7bb8772
- Whitepaper
- Not provided
- Requirements
- Provided
- Technical Requirements
- Provided