Introduction
We express our gratitude to the VEREM team for the collaborative engagement that enabled the execution of this Smart Contract Security Assessment.
The VEREM ecosystem integrates certified physical emeralds into blockchain technology through a structure that prioritizes transparency, governance, sustainability, and systemic risk mitigation.
Document | |
|---|---|
| Name | Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for VEREM |
| Audited By | Khrystyna Tkachuk |
| Approved By | Ivan Bondar |
| Website | https://verem.org/→ |
| Changelog | 03/03/2026 - Preliminary Report |
| 05/03/2026 - Final Report | |
| Platform | BSC |
| Language | Solidity |
| Tags | ERC20 |
| Methodology | https://docs.hacken.io/methodologies/smart-contracts→ |
Document
- Name
- Smart Contract Code Review and Security Analysis Report for VEREM
- Audited By
- Khrystyna Tkachuk
- Approved By
- Ivan Bondar
- Website
- https://verem.org/→
- Changelog
- 03/03/2026 - Preliminary Report
- 05/03/2026 - Final Report
- Platform
- BSC
- Language
- Solidity
- Tags
- ERC20
Review Scope | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/veremrwa/VeremContracts→ |
| Commit | b6bff64 |
| Contract Address | 0x862829e8dCf0Fd939D61d1b0D4a3aaf983ee4F73 |
Review Scope
- Commit
- b6bff64
- Contract Address
- 0x862829e8dCf0Fd939D61d1b0D4a3aaf983ee4F73
Audit Summary
The system users should acknowledge all the risks summed up in the risks section of the report
{Finding_Table?columns=title,severity,status&setting.filter.type=Vulnerability}
Documentation quality
Functional requirements are missed.
Technical description is not provided.
Code quality
The development environment is not configured.
Test coverage
Code coverage of the project is 0%.
Test cases are not provided.
System Overview
VEREM — is an ERC-20 token that mints the entire initial supply to the deployer. No additional minting is allowed. The token includes a transfer-enable mechanism that is disabled at deployment and can be switched on only once by the owner to enable transfers.
It has the following attributes:
Name: Verified Emeralds
Symbol: VEREM
Decimals: 18
Total supply: 50 000 000.
Privileged roles
The owner of the VEREM contract can add accounts to the exclusion list (
excludeFromEnable()), allowing them to transfer tokens even when trading is disabled. The owner can callenableTrading()only once, after which transfers will be enabled for all users. The owner is excluded from the transfer restrictions. In the current deployed contract on BSC chain the owner is renounced.
Potential Risks
Centralized Minting to a Single Address: The project concentrates minting tokens in a single address, raising the risk of fund mismanagement or theft, especially if key storage security is compromised.
Control Risks from Whitelisted Users: Granting significant privileges to whitelisted addresses (isExcludedFromEnable) without adequate safeguards may introduce operational uncertainty and undermine user confidence. Whitelisted accounts are able to transfer tokens while trading is disabled, enabling privileged pre-launch distribution and private OTC-like transfers. This mechanism can be misused for stealth allocations, early liquidity provisioning, or selective dumping once trading is enabled, creating potential fairness and market integrity concerns.
Single Points of Failure and Control: Part of the system rely on a limited set of privileged roles and operational processes. While this setup simplifies coordination, it also means that overall availability and decision execution may depend on a small number of entities, increasing sensitivity to operational issues or targeted compromise. However, in the current deployed contract on the BSC chain, the owner is renounced.
Findings
No vulnerabilities were foundAppendix 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 | |
|---|---|
| Repository | https://github.com/veremrwa/VeremContracts→ |
| Commit | b6bff64083b57fcd6677467f3d020a33b9cdd321 |
| Contract Address | 0x862829e8dCf0Fd939D61d1b0D4a3aaf983ee4F73 |
| Whitepaper | N/A |
| Requirements | |
| Technical Requirements |
Scope Details
- Commit
- b6bff64083b57fcd6677467f3d020a33b9cdd321
- Contract Address
- 0x862829e8dCf0Fd939D61d1b0D4a3aaf983ee4F73
- Whitepaper
- N/A
- Requirements
- Technical Requirements
Assets in Scope
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.
Frameworks and Methodologies
This security assessment was conducted in alignment with recognised penetration testing standards, methodologies and guidelines, including the NIST SP 800-115 – Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment →, and the Penetration Testing Execution Standard (PTES) →, These assets provide a structured foundation for planning, executing, and documenting technical evaluations such as vulnerability assessments, exploitation activities, and security code reviews. Hacken’s internal penetration testing methodology extends these principles to Web2 and Web3 environments to ensure consistency, repeatability, and verifiable outcomes.