CertiK reviewed MESSIER (Messier - Audit) on 23 May 2023: 28 findings, 0 critical; 25 marked fixed, 3 acknowledged.
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 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Medium | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Low | 0 | 2 | 16 |
In the `signOnProposal()` function, users can only sign a proposal once due to the `notSigner(proposalIndex)` modifier, which checks whether `_storeSigner[msg.sender][_proposalIndex] == false`. Therefore, the `_storeSigner[msg.sender][_proposalIndex] = true` code should be used for each signing process. However, the contract uses `_storeSigner[msg.sender][signersNum] = true;`, which allows a user to sign a proposal multiple times.
In the contract `Dao` the role `ORACLE` has authority over the functions below. - function `ProposalCheckOut`: to execute a proposal according to the `ProposalType`. Any compromise to the `ORACLE` account may allow the hacker to take advantage of this authority.
In the function `CheckOutVote()`, the voting result is only based on the number of YES and NO votes without considering the total amount of votes, namely the quorum. As a result, the vote could be passed with only one YES vote.
The logic in the `changeState` function is incomplete and incorrect. Specifically, the `VoteOnProposal` function can only be invoked in the `QUEUED` state, but there is no mechanism to transition to or from that state: 1. The `CREATED` state can only be changed to `FAILED`. 2. There is currently no mechanism in place to transition from the `QUEUED` state to the `VOTING` state. 3. It is not possible to change the state to any value other than `CREATED` or `VOTING` once the proposal has entered either of these states. ```solidity = 703 function changeState(State _state,uint _proposalIndex) public OnlyOracle returns(bool){ if(proposals[_proposalIndex].activeState == State.CREATED){ if(_state == State.FAILED){ proposals[_proposalIndex].activeState = _state; }else{ revert("You can not change whatever you want"); } }else if(proposals[_proposalIndex].activeState == State.VOTING){ (uint YES,uint NO,State s) = CheckOutVote(proposalIndex); if(NO>YES){ proposals[_proposalIndex].activeState =State.FAILED; }else{ proposals[_proposalIndex].activeState =State.READY; } } ```
The `oracle` role has the ability to directly execute a proposal by calling `OracleNext()` regardless of the result of the voting process, which has the potential to render the entire voting system invalid.
The following code snippets in the `ProposalCheckOut()` function is incorrect: ```solidity if (queue_Ids[_Index] == _idQ) { queue_Ids[_Index] = queue_Ids[_Index]; queue_Ids.pop(); ``` , for the `queue_Ids[_Index] = queue_Ids[_Index];` is redundant, it should be `queue_Ids[_Index] = queue_Ids[queue_Ids.length - 1];` to implement the design.
There is no `receive()` or `fallback()` function in the Dao.sol, so this contract cannot receive ETH.
The `CloseProposal()` function cannot be called because a vote can only be in the `State.CREATED` or `State.EXECUTED` state according to the code. Additionally, changing the state to `State.FAILED` has no effect as there is no state check on `VoteOnProposal()`, meaning that the voting process cannot be stopped.
According to the logic of the function `ProposalNext()`, the state check in `ProposalCheckOut()`, which is `if(proposal.activeState ==State.QUEUED)`, should be modified as `if(proposal.activeState ==State.RUNNING)`, or the `ProposalNext()` would be reverted.
The `Initializable` contract is inherited but not imported.
If the proposal has a time limit, the contract should verify that the current time is within the voting period before calling `VoteOnProposal()`.
There should always be events emitted in the sensitive functions that are controlled by centralization roles.
The **require** can be used to check for conditions and throw an exception if the condition is not met. It is better to provide a string message containing details about the error that will be passed back to the caller.
Addresses should be checked before assignment or external call to make sure they are not zero addresses. ```solidity=160 ORACLE = _oracle; ``` - `_oracle` is not zero-checked before being used. --- ```solidity=161 _M87 = _m87; ``` - `_m87` is not zero-checked before being used. --- ```solidity=188 _supernova = _fb; ``` - `_fb` is not zero-checked before being used.
A sandwich attack may happen when an attacker observes a transaction swapping tokens or adding liquidity without setting restrictions on slippage or minimum output amount. The attacker can manipulate the exchange rate by frontrunning (executing before the target) a transaction to purchase one of the assets and make profits by back running (executing after the target) a transaction to sell the asset. The following function is called without setting restrictions on slippage or minimum output amount, so transactions triggering the function are vulnerable to sandwich attacks, especially when the input amount is large: - `IUniswapV2Router(UNISWAP_V2_ROUTER).swapExactTokensForETHSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens()` in `swapTokensForEth()`
The `Bridge` modifier verifies whether the `_hsh` parameter is equal to the `_Hash` value. However, since the `_hsh` is always passed in as the `_Hash` parameter and is not set by the function caller, the modifier becomes redundant.
The `CLASSIC_MAX` and `CLASSIC_MIN` is not used anywhere in the contract, hence they are redundant.
The private function `ProposalCheckOut()`, which verifies and executes the result of a proposal, is redundant as it is not utilized anywhere in the contract.
In consideration of the functionality of the `changeState()` function and its capacity to modify a proposal's state at will, it appears unnecessary to use the `CloseProposal()` function to change the proposal state to `FAILED`. Additionally, the `failedChecker` modifier has also been considered redundant since every function that utilizes this modifier already incorporates an `atState` check.
Literals with many digits are difficult to read and review. ```solidity=164 CLASSIC_DEF = 8700000000000000000; //wei 8.7 ``` --- ```solidity=165 DOUBLE_DEF = 17400000000000000000; //wei 17.4 ``` --- ```solidity=166 CLASSIC_MIN = 870000000000000000; //wei 0.87 ``` --- ```solidity=167 DOUBLE_MIN = 8700000000000000000; //wei 8.7 ``` --- ```solidity=168 CLASSIC_MAX = 87000000000000000000; //wei 8.7 ``` --- ```solidity=169 DOUBLE_MAX = 26100000000000000000; //wei 26.1 ``` --- ```solidity=170 FULLCYCLE_MAX = 87000000000000000000; //wei 87 ETH ```
The `persentage` should be `percentage`.
The return value of the transfer()/transferFrom() call is not checked. ```solidity=764 IERC20Upgradeable(_token).transfer( address(_supernova), getfromtoken ); ``` --- ```solidity=803 IERC20Upgradeable(_token).transfer(address(0xdead), getfromtoken); ```
The contract cited has an 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 differing compiler version numbers. This can lead to 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 function `swapTokenForToken` is private but never used in the contract, hence it is redundant.
```solidity=390 returns (bool) ``` - The function `ProposalCheckOut` implicitly returns a default value. --- ```solidity=446 returns (bool) ``` - The function `sendToExecution` implicitly returns a default value. --- ```solidity=505 returns (bool) ``` - The function `ProposalNext` implicitly returns a default value. --- ```solidity=713 ) internal Bridge(_hsh) returns (bool) { ``` - The function `execute_oneProposal` implicitly returns a default value. --- ```solidity=791 ) internal Bridge(_hsh) returns (bool) { ``` - The function `execute_Cycle` implicitly returns a default value.
| Address | Chain | Source code |
|---|---|---|
| 0xe0cf…b08c0xe0cf9c69894e2cca7221a5d1db2f867ece64b08c | Chain: Ethereum | Source code: Verified source |
| 0x2b65…4dd40x2b653f343e11ded7daef015aa3034594c3194dd4 | Chain: Ethereum | Source code: Verified source |
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