- Hacken
- Audits
- tomb-finance
- [SCA] TOMB Finance | ERC20 | Mar2022
Introduction
We express our gratitude to the TOMB Finance team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
Tomb Chain is an eco-friendly Layer 2 built on top of the Fantom Blockchain.
| title | content |
|---|---|
| Platform | Fantom, Tomb Chain |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC20 |
| Timeline | 10/03/2022 – 29/03/2022 |
| Methodology | https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→ |
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/tombfinance/tombfinance-contracts→ |
| Commit | c7d44f87cb64878277bd737945e6feaf4f6f9516 |
Review Scope
- Commit
- c7d44f87cb64878277bd737945e6feaf4f6f9516
Audit Summary
10/10
7/10
5/10
7/10
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 TOMB Finance |
| Audited By | Hacken |
| Approved By | Hacken |
| Website | https://tomb.finance/→ |
| Changelog | 25/03/2022 – Initial Review |
| 29/03/2022 – Revision |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for TOMB Finance
- Audited By
- Hacken
- Approved By
- Hacken
- Website
- https://tomb.finance/→
- Changelog
- 25/03/2022 – Initial Review
- 29/03/2022 – Revision
Executive Summary
Documentation quality
The total Documentation quality score is 7 out of 10.
The Customer provided user-friendly docs but neither functional requirements nor technical requirements.
While it is a pretty straightforward ERC20 token contract with some additions, it is mostly self-documented.
Code quality
The total Code quality score is 5 out of 10.
Code duplications.
No unit tests were provided.
Not following solidity code style guidelines.
No NatSpec blocks.
Contradictions in the code.
Test coverage
The total Architecture quality score is 7 out of 10.
Outdated solidity compiler used.
Token logic is in one file.
Security score
Upon auditing, the code was found to contain 0 critical, 0 high, 2 medium, and 3 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 8.9. This score reflects the combined evaluation of documentation, code quality, architecture quality, and security aspects of the project.
Risks
No potential risks found in this section.
Findings
Code ― | Title | Status | Severity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-2022-1951 | No tests were provided | accepted | Medium | |
| F-2022-1950 | Tautology or Contradiction | accepted | Medium | |
| F-2022-195 | No return statement | accepted | Low | |
| F-2022-1953 | A public function that could be declared external. | accepted | Low | |
| F-2022-1952 | The solidity version is outdated | accepted | 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/tombfinance/tombfinance-contracts→ |
| Commit | c7d44f87cb64878277bd737945e6feaf4f6f9516 |
| Whitepaper | Not provided |
| Requirements | Not provided |
| Technical Requirements | Not provided |
Scope Details
- Commit
- c7d44f87cb64878277bd737945e6feaf4f6f9516
- Whitepaper
- Not provided
- Requirements
- Not provided
- Technical Requirements
- Not provided