- Hacken
- Audits
- taikai-bepro
- [SCA] TaiKai | ERC721 | Aug2022
Audit name:
[SCA] TaiKai | ERC721 | Aug2022
Date:
Aug 27, 2022
Table of Content
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the TaiKai (BEPRO) team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
TaiKai is a hackathon platform that connects companies with talented developers to create solutions. They offer innovators a fun and exciting way to learn new skills, build cool projects, and earn rewards.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | EVM |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC721 |
| Timeline | 01/08/2022 - 29/08/2022 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/taikai/dappkit→ |
| Commit | adf31a6ff8d67081704611ba5528897ca5e88ba4 |
Review Scope
- Repository
- https://github.com/taikai/dappkit→
- Commit
- adf31a6ff8d67081704611ba5528897ca5e88ba4
Audit Summary
10/10
10/10
8/10
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 TaiKai (BEPRO) |
| Audited By | Hacken |
| Website | https://taikai.network→ |
| Changelog | 08/08/2022 - Initial Review |
| 15/08/2022 - Second Review | |
| 30/08/2022 - Third Review |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for TaiKai (BEPRO)
- Audited By
- Hacken
- Website
- https://taikai.network→
- Changelog
- 08/08/2022 - Initial Review
- 15/08/2022 - Second Review
- 30/08/2022 - Third Review
System Overview
TaiKai is a mixed-purpose system with the following contracts:
BountyToken — a simple ERC-721 token that allows minting only to the contract owner. Transfers for token are disabled.
Networkv2_ — entry point to the system that allows creating a bounty, creating a pull request, etc.
NetworkRegistry_ - a management contract for networks that allow creating/removing networks.
Privileged roles
The dispatcher role of the BountyToken can mint tokens.
The owner of the BountyToken can assign a dispatcher role.
The owner of the NetworkRegistry contract can change the network creation minimum lock amount.
The owner of the NetworkRegistry contract can change the network registration fee. The fee could not be bigger than 10% of the locked amount required for network creation.
The owner of the NetworkRegistry contract can change, cancel and close fees. Fees could be bigger than 100%.
The owner of the NetworkV2 contract can change the following parameters: councilAmount, draftTime, disputableTime, percentageNeededForDispute, mergeCreatorFeeShare, proposerFeeShare, oracleExchangeRate, cancelableTime.
The owner of the NetworkRegistry contract can add or remove trusted token addresses.
Executive Summary
Documentation quality
The total Documentation quality score is 10 out of 10.
Functional requirements are provided and well-describe the product.
Code quality
The total Code quality score is 8 out of 10.
Basic user interactions are covered with tests.
Test coverage is 25% for BountyToken, 82% for NetworkRegistry and NetworkV2.
Architecture quality
The Architecture quality score is 10 out of 10.
Code is separated in different contracts, following the single responsibility principle.
Development environment is well set-up.
Security score
Upon auditing, the code was found to contain 0 critical, 3 high, 5 medium, and 10 low severity issues. Out of these, 15 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 9.8. This score reflects the combined evaluation of documentation, code quality, architecture quality, and security aspects of the project.
Risks
The repository contains contracts that are outside of the audit scope.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2022-1786 | Unauthorized access | fixed | High | |
| F-2022-1785 | Checks-Effects-Interactions pattern violation | fixed | High | |
| F-2022-1784 | Incorrect validation | fixed | High | |
| F-2022-1791 | Empty function | fixed | Medium | |
| F-2022-1790 | Denial of Service vulnerability | fixed | Medium | |
| F-2022-1789 | Denial of Service vulnerability | fixed | Medium | |
| F-2022-1788 | Denial of Service vulnerability | fixed | Medium | |
| F-2022-1787 | Missing validation | fixed | Medium | |
| F-2022-1801 | Zero valued transactions | fixed | Low | |
| F-2022-1800 | Redundant inheritance | 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/taikai/dappkit→ |
| Commit | |
| Whitepaper | Not provided |
| Requirements | Provided |
| Technical Requirements | Provided→ |
Scope Details
- Repository
- https://github.com/taikai/dappkit→
- Commit
- Whitepaper
- Not provided
- Requirements
- Provided
- Technical Requirements
- Provided→