Z Versus Project
Audit · firm’s term: audit report
Cyberscope reviewed Z Versus Project on 11 Jul 2022: 6 findings, 0 critical; none marked fixed.
No open critical findings
Open the reportOpen Z Versus Project’s security record
Report stored on IPFS. Content hash bafybeige2kxmzvxmrpyx4w46bdle2n6ujyu7o7ytq6hpmfrnqyu7qsycc4
Trustblock does not review code.
Findings6
Statuses are the security firm’s own, from its report.
| Severity | Open | Acknowledged | Fixed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| High | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Medium | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Low | 6 | 0 | 0 |
LowL01 - Public Function could be Declared ExternalOpen
The report gives no description here.
LowL04 - Conformance to Solidity Naming ConventionsOpen
The report gives no description here.
LowL07 - Missing Events ArithmeticOpen
The report gives no description here.
LowL12 - Using Variables before DeclarationOpen
The report gives no description here.
LowL14 - Uninitialized Variables in Local ScopeOpen
The report gives no description here.
LowSTC - Succeeded Transfer CheckOpen
The report gives no description here.
Contracts in scope1
| Address | Chain | Source code |
|---|---|---|
| 0xa6966b70f6d6cc70a518550f156e81fc11bd88f2 | Chain: BNB Chain | Source code: Verified source |
Part of Z Versus Project’s security record
Z Versus ProjectAudits2 audits by 1 firmLast audit Sep 2022, by Cyberscope.
Critical findingsNo open critical findingsAcross 2 reports.
Open Z Versus Project’s security recordSecurity firm
Cyberscope1,783 projects reviewed · 2,056 reports · latest Oct 2026
See Cyberscope’s auditsSomething wrong on this page? A missing report, a wrong date, a finding that was fixed since. Tell us and we check it against its source.
Tell us