PhoenixDAO staking (Initial Audit)

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin

Contents

INTRODUCTION

Key understandings

PROJECT DETAILS


Name: PheonixDAO staking (Initial Audit) 
Auditor: Moazzam Arif | Shakeib Shaida
Platform: Ethereum/Solidity
Type of review: Staking
Methods: Architecture Review, Functional Testing, Computer-Aided Verification, Manual Review
Git Repository: (insert git repo link for the contract)
Document log: Day 1: 26th June 2021 (Initial Audit), Day 2: (Final Audit pending)

SCOPE

The git-repository shared was checked for common code violations along with vulnerability-specific probing to detect major issues/vulnerabilities. Some specific checks are as follows:

Code reviewFunctional review
Reentrancy Unchecked external callBusiness Logics Review
Ownership TakeoverERC20 API violationFunctionality Checks
Timestamp DependenceUnchecked mathAccess Control & Authorization
Gas Limit and LoopsUnsafe type inferenceEscrow manipulation
DoS with (Unexpected) ThrowImplicit visibility levelToken Supply manipulation
DoS with Block Gas LimitDeployment ConsistencyAsset’s integrity
Transaction-Ordering DependenceRepository ConsistencyUser Balances manipulation
Style guide violationData ConsistencyKill-Switch Mechanism
Costly LoopOperation Trails & Event Generation

AUDIT REPORT

Executive Summary

The analysis indicates that the contracts audited are secure (with some low severity issues).

Our team performed a technique called “Filtered Audit”, where the contract was separately audited by two individuals. After their thorough and rigorous process of manual testing, an automated review was carried out using Mythril, MythX and Slither. All the flags raised were manually reviewed and re-tested. 

Our team found:

# of issues Severity of the risk
0Critical Risk issue
0High Risk issue
0Medium Risk issue
1Low Risk issue
3Informatory issues

FINDINGS

Critical-risk issues

No issues found

High-risk issues

No issues found

Medium-risk issues

No issues found

Low-risk issues

  1. Precision Error

ONE_DAY is used in calculating remaining days.  If a user wants to unstake before the durationTimeStamp (in StakerData Struct) then he/she will bear a burn fee. Here is the code for the remaining days.

        uint256 _remainingDays = (
stakerData[_expiredTimestamps[i]]
.durationTimestamp
                .add(_expiredTimestamps[i])
.sub(block.timestamp)

)
.div(ONE_DAY);

ATTACK SCENARIO

If a user stakes for ONE_DAY, and unstake immediately (before ONE_DAY, he/she will not have to pay the burn fee). Let’s put some values in the above code for better understanding

   uint256 durationTimeStamp = ONE_DAY; (86400)

   uint256 initiationTimeStamp = 1624872985 (06/28/2021 @ 9:36am)
  // if user unstake in next second i.e block,timestamp = 1624872986, then
  Uint256 remainingDays = (1624872985 + 86400 - 624872986)/86400 return 0

Remedy: 

Timestamps should be used instead of ONE_DAY

INFORMATORY ISSUES

  1. Floating pragma versions.
  2. Zero-address check missing while setting the phoenix token contract address.
  3. There is a rug-pull indicator function withDrawToken allows the owner to pull all funds (whitepaper/documentation was not provided).

DISCLAIMER

The smart contracts provided by the client for audit purposes have been thoroughly analyzed in compliance with the global best practices till date w.r.t cybersecurity vulnerabilities and issues in smart contract code, the details of which are enclosed in this report. 

This report is not an endorsement or indictment of the project or team, and they do not in any way guarantee the security of the particular object in context. This report is not considered, and should not be interpreted as an influence, on the potential economics of the token, its sale or any other aspect of the project. 

Crypto assets/tokens are results of the emerging blockchain technology in the domain of decentralized finance and they carry with them high levels of technical risk and uncertainty. No report provides any warranty or representation to any third-Party in any respect, including regarding the bug-free nature of code, the business model or proprietors of any such business model, and the legal compliance of any such business. No third party should rely on the reports in any way, including for the purpose of making any decisions to buy or sell any token, product, service or other assets. Specifically, for the avoidance of doubt, this report does not constitute investment advice, is not intended to be relied upon as investment advice, is not an endorsement of this project or team, and it is not a guarantee as to the absolute security of the project.

Smart contracts are deployed and executed on a blockchain. The platform, its programming language, and other software related to the smart contract can have its vulnerabilities that can lead to hacks. The scope of our review is limited to a review of the Solidity code and only the Solidity code we note as being within the scope of our review within this report. The Solidity language itself remains under development and is subject to unknown risks and flaws. The review does not extend to the compiler layer, or any other areas beyond Solidity that could present security risks.

This audit cannot be considered as a sufficient assessment regarding the utility and safety of the code, bug-free status, or any other statements of the contract. While we have done our best in conducting the analysis and producing this report, it is important to note that you should not rely on this report only – we recommend proceeding with several independent audits and a public bug bounty program to ensure the security of smart contracts. 


Read More Audits

Powered by