Quantstamp reviewed FireStarter on 11 Sep 2021: 23 findings, 0 critical; 22 marked fixed, 1 open.
Report hosted on certificate.quantstamp.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 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Medium | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Low | 1 | 0 | 15 |
It is important to validate inputs, even if they only come from trusted addresses, to avoid human error. The following functions do not have a proper validation of input parameters: 1. `Vesting.init()` does not check if the `presale` parameter is different from `address(0)`. 2. `Vesting.initialize()` does not check if the `_rewardToken` parameter is different from `address(0)`. This function does not check if the `_param` parameter attributes are in the permitted ranges, e.g. `_params.initialUnlock > block.timestamp`. 3. `TokenLock.initialize()` does not check if the `_token` parameter is different from `address(0)`. 4. `Presale.initialize()` does not check if the `AddressParams` are different from `address(0)`. Note that if the `projectOwner` would be `address(0)` by mistake, the `withdrawFunds()` and `withdrawUnsoldToken()` functions would no longer work. 5. `Presale.initialize()` does not check if the `PresaleParams` are greater than `0` and most importantly that `_presale.startTime > block.timestamp`. 6. `Staking.initialize()` does not validate that the `_lpToken` and `_flame` input parameters are different than `address(0)`. This function does not check if the `_startTime > block.timestamp` and `_earlyWithdrawal` is not checked to be shorter than `stakingPeriod`
The report names a repository or files. Open the report to see its scope.
Repository and files the report names (12)
236 projects reviewed · 332 reports · latest Oct 2026
See Quantstamp’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