Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
88 lines (50 loc) · 3.61 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

88 lines (50 loc) · 3.61 KB

Timeloans.Finance Smart Contracts Audit

Introduction

Scope of the Audit

The scope of the audit includes following smart contract at:

from: TimeLoans.sol#L547 to: TimeLoans.sol#L848

The audited commit identifier is: cab5f5b742aba2a4c237c460e1b436c5e8b71ba4

Security Assessment Principles

Classification of Issues

  • CRITICAL: Bugs leading to Ether or token theft, fund access locking or any other loss of Ether/tokens to be transferred to any party (for example, dividends).

  • MAJOR: Bugs that can trigger a contract failure. Further recovery is possible only by manual modification of the contract state or replacement.

  • WARNINGS: Bugs that can break the intended contract logic or expose it to DoS attacks.

  • COMMENTS: Other issues and recommendations reported to/ acknowledged by the team.

Security Assessment Methodology

Two auditors independently verified the code.

Stages of the audit were as follows:

  • "Blind" manual check of the code and its model
  • "Guided" manual code review
  • Checking the code compliance with the customer requirements
  • Discussion of independent audit results
  • Report preparation

Detected Issues

CRITICAL

Not found

MAJOR

Not found

WARNINGS

1. No check that the address is not zero

TimeLoans.sol#L619

No need to burn a token for a zero address. In a well-known library for secure development of smart contracts, a check is done: ERC20.sol#L250 Despite the fact that '_burn' is an internal function and is called now only from the 'withdraw' function, it is necessary to check the address for zero. It is possible that this code will then be used again and the developer can call the '_burn' function in another place where 'msg.sender' is no longer used as an address.

TimeLoans.sol#L610

Need to check the address for zero. Despite the fact that '_mint' is an internal function and is called now only from the 'deposit' function, it is necessary to check the address for zero. It is possible that this code will then be used again and the developer can call the '_mint' function in another place where 'msg.sender' is no longer used as an address.

Status: Acknowledged

COMMENTS

1. Code refactoring is recommended

TimeLoans.sol#L926

The (spenderAllowance! = uint (-1)) check can be removed because all operations to change the number of tokens are implemented using the safe mathematics library.

It is recommended to rewrite the ‘transferFrom’' function in accordance with this: ERC20.sol#L152

Status: Acknowledged

CONCLUSION

The smart contract was audited and no critical or major issues were found. One suspicious location has been identified (marked as warning), but it’s assumed as not critical.