Q1 2025 Web3 Security ReportAccess control failures led to $1.63 billion in losses
Discover report insights
  • Hacken
  • Audits
  • unizen
  • [SCA] Unizen / Unizen-Solana-Swap / Jan2025

Unizen

Audit name:

[SCA] Unizen / Unizen-Solana-Swap / Jan2025

Date:

Feb 12, 2025

Table of Content

→Introduction
→Audit Summary
→System Overview
→Potential Risks
→Findings
→Appendix 1. Definitions
→Appendix 2. Scope
→Appendix 3. Additional Valuables
→Disclaimer

Want a comprehensive audit report like this?

Introduction

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

Unizen is a next-generation DEX aggregator, offering developers, traders, and businesses the ability to unlock unparalleled token swap capabilities.

Document

NameSmart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Unizen
Audited ByStepan Chekhovskoi
Approved ByAtaberk Yavuzer
Websitehttps://unizen.io→
Changelog27/01/2025 - Initial Report
12/02/2025 - Second Report
PlatformSolana
LanguageRust
TagsDeFi, DeX Aggregator
Methodologyhttps://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→

  • Document

    Name
    Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for Unizen
    Audited By
    Stepan Chekhovskoi
    Approved By
    Ataberk Yavuzer
    Website
    https://unizen.io→
    Changelog
    27/01/2025 - Initial Report
    12/02/2025 - Second Report
    Platform
    Solana
    Language
    Rust
    Tags
    DeFi, DeX Aggregator
    Methodology
    https://hackenio.cc/sc_methodology→

Review Scope

Repositoryhttps://github.com/unizen-io/unizen-solana-swap→
Initial Commit653803a62fbe5c9ebb96c52d7cbeb4afec3eba10
Second Commita4592e0418b6a5afe26138822ae358e4c2c2b299

Audit Summary

3Total Findings
3Resolved
0Accepted
0Mitigated

The system users should acknowledge all the risks summed up in the risks section of the report

Documentation quality

  • Functional requirements are missed.

  • Technical description is not provided.

Code quality

  • The code is well-structured.

  • The development environment is configured.

Test coverage

Code coverage of the project is 0%.

  • The protocol does not have any test cases.

System Overview

Unizen Solana Contract wraps Jupiter AMM swap functionality.

The contract implements optional fee mechanism which provides ability to integrate an off-chain service to cover Gas fees in arbitrary token.

The contract provides validation for swap minimum amount out.

Privileged roles

  • The contract owner is able to upgrade the functionality.

Potential Risks

System Reliance on External Contracts: The functioning of the system significantly relies on Jupiter AMM external contracts. Any flaws or vulnerabilities in these contracts adversely affect the audited project, potentially leading to security breaches or loss of funds.

Flexibility and Risk in Contract Upgrades: The project's contracts are upgradable, allowing the administrator to update the contract logic at any time. While this provides flexibility in addressing issues and evolving the project, it also introduces risks if upgrade processes are not properly managed or secured, potentially allowing for unauthorized changes that could compromise the project's integrity and security.

Integrator Specifies Zero Share Percent: The project introduces the integrator role for accounts executing transactions on behalf of the protocol users. The integrators may charge a fee for the service. The smart contract provides the ability for integrators to share the fee with the protocol development team. However, integrators may specify the fee-sharing as zero and not reward the protocol.

Misconfiguration of Jupiter Transactions: The integrators are allowed to provide arbitrary swap data to Jupiter AMM. Users should carefully validate the source and receive token accounts, check the swap and minimum output amounts.

Findings

Code
―
Title
Status
Severity
F-2025-8517Inaccessible Functionality due to Read-Only Account
fixed

Medium
F-2025-8516Redundant Accounts in Context
fixed

Observation
F-2025-8511Redundant Lifetime Declarations
fixed

Observation
1-3 of 3 findings

Identify vulnerabilities in your smart contracts.

Appendix 1. Definitions

Severities

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.

  • 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.

Potential Risks

The "Potential Risks" section identifies issues that are not direct security vulnerabilities but could still affect the project’s performance, reliability, or user trust. These risks arise from design choices, architectural decisions, or operational practices that, while not immediately exploitable, may lead to problems under certain conditions. Additionally, potential risks can impact the quality of the audit itself, as they may involve external factors or components beyond the scope of the audit, leading to incomplete assessments or oversight of key areas. This section aims to provide a broader perspective on factors that could affect the project's long-term security, functionality, and the comprehensiveness of the audit findings.

Appendix 2. Scope

The scope of the project includes the following smart contracts from the provided repository:

Scope Details

Repositoryhttps://github.com/unizen-io/unizen-solana-swap→
Initial Commit653803a62fbe5c9ebb96c52d7cbeb4afec3eba10
Second Commita4592e0418b6a5afe26138822ae358e4c2c2b299
WhitepaperN/A
Requirementshttps://docs.unizen.io→
Technical RequirementsREADME.md

Assets in Scope

constants.rs - constants.rs
errors.rs - errors.rs
helpers.rs - helpers.rs
instructions
close_program_wsol.rs - instructions/close_program_wsol.rs
create_program_wsol_idempotent.rs - instructions/create_program_wsol_idempotent.rs
mod.rs - instructions/mod.rs
swap_sol_for_tokens.rs - instructions/swap_sol_for_tokens.rs
swap_tokens_for_sol.rs - instructions/swap_tokens_for_sol.rs
swap_tokens_for_tokens.rs - instructions/swap_tokens_for_tokens.rs
take_integrator_fee.rs - instructions/take_integrator_fee.rs
lib.rs - lib.rs

Appendix 3. Additional Valuables

Additional Recommendations

The smart contracts in the scope of this audit could benefit from the introduction of automatic emergency actions for critical activities, such as unauthorized operations like ownership changes or proxy upgrades, as well as unexpected fund manipulations, including large withdrawals or minting events. Adding such mechanisms would enable the protocol to react automatically to unusual activity, ensuring that the contract remains secure and functions as intended.

To improve functionality, these emergency actions could be designed to trigger under specific conditions, such as:

  • Detecting changes to ownership or critical permissions.

  • Monitoring large or unexpected transactions and minting events.

  • Pausing operations when irregularities are identified.

These enhancements would provide an added layer of security, making the contract more robust and better equipped to handle unexpected situations while maintaining smooth operations.

Disclaimer