CertiK reviewed PD Land on 18 Apr 2022: 17 findings, 0 critical; 5 marked fixed, 12 open.
Report hosted on skynet.certik.com.
Trustblock does not review code.
Statuses are the security firm’s own, from its report.
| Severity | Open | Acknowledged | Fixed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| High | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Medium | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Low | 8 | 0 | 3 |
According to the following code: ```solidity function mintPrivateSale(uint8 landType, uint256 numTokens) ... require(_memberslist[msg.sender].minted < _memberslist[msg.sender].balance, "User has minted max allowed number"); ... ``` , the condition will be bypassed when `_memberslist[msg.sender].minted` is a little smaller than `_memberslist[msg.sender].balance`, but it is still possible to make `_memberslist[msg.sender].minted` exceed the limit of `_memberslist[msg.sender].balance` after this call of `mintPrivateSale()`.
According to the following code: ```solidity function whitelistMembers (address[] memory users, uint8[] memory balances) public onlyOwner { saleActive = landNFT.getSaleStatus(); require(!saleActive, "Cannot whitelist"); for (uint i = 0; i < users.length; i++) { _memberslist[users[i]].exists = true; _memberslist[users[i]].balance = balances[i]; _memberslist[users[i]].minted = 0; } } ``` , the condition check could be bypassed if the `owner` changed `saleActive` in the contract `landNFT`, hence it cannot prevent an existing member in the `_memberslist` from being modified during a private sale.
In the contract `LandNFT`, the `owner` role could change `saleContractAdddress` arbitrarily by calling `changeSaleContractAddress()`, as a result, the `owner` could designate any contract or EOA to mint any amount of tokens, which may cause unlimited minting issue. We would like to confirm if the use of `changeSaleContractAddress()` is to deploy other sale contracts. In addition, it is also recommended to mitigate the possible unlimited minting issue in this case.
These variables are defined but not used in the contract.
The contract has unlocked compiler version. An unlocked compiler version in the source code of the contract permits the user to compile it at or above a particular version. This, in turn, leads to differences in the generated bytecode between compilations due to different compiler versions. This can lead to an ambiguity when debugging as compiler specific bugs may occur in the codebase that would be hard to identify over a span of multiple compiler versions rather than a specific one.
The report names a repository or files. Open the report to see its scope.
Repository and files the report names (2)
1,044 projects reviewed · 1,375 reports · latest May 2025
See CertiK’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