KuKu security record
As of 3 Nov 2026, KuKu has 1 audit report on Trustblock, by CertiK, dated 15 Aug 2023. That report lists no open critical findings. It also holds 1 deployed contract on 1 chain.
Record last updated . It holds audits and findings, contracts and incidents up to Nov 2026. Trustblock does not review code.
Audits1
Newest first
| Audit | Security firm | Date | Scope | Critical findings | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuku - Audit | Security firm: CertiK | Date: | Scope: 1 address on Ethereum | No open critical findings | Open · skynet.certik.com |
Findings9
Statuses are the security firm’s own, from each report.
| Severity | Open | Acknowledged | Fixed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| High | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Medium | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Low | 5 | 0 | 1 |
HighCentralization Risks in KuKu.solKuku - Audit · CertiK · 15 Aug 2023Fixed
In the contract `KuKu` the role `_owner` has authority over the functions shown in the diagram and list below. * enableTrading() - Enable transfer of tokens for all users * changeLpPair() - Set a new address as an LP pair address * setNoFeeWallet() - Set address fee exemption status * setPresaleAddress() - Allow an address to participate in the presale * toggleCanSwapFees() - Set flag to allow/prevent swapping of tokens for native tokens * changeWallets() - Set new marketing wallets * transferOwnership() - Transfer contract ownership to another address * renounceOwnership() - Give up contract ownership Any compromise to the `_owner` account may allow the hacker to take advantage of this authority to set important contract parameters such as fee exemptions, fee wallets, and swap parameters.  
Open the reportLowSetting of new pair contractsKuku - Audit · CertiK · 15 Aug 2023Fixed
The function `changeLpPair()` has a misleading name that seems to change the current pair set in the `isLpPair` mapping. The function simply adds a new address to the `isLpPair` mapping, which would cause the newly added address to be subject to buy or sell fees in token transactions. The audit team would like to understand if the intended design is to support fees for multiple LP pair addresses. The audit team would also like to understand how the team intends to ensure that no addresses are incorrectly added to the `isLpPair` list since there is no mechanism to remove addresses from the mapping.
Open the reportContracts1
| Address | Chain | Source code |
|---|---|---|
| 0xc3071803b9d23460820b516673fd3cec0415d0ed | Chain: Ethereum | Source code: Verified source |
Show this on your site
Is this your project? Show this record on your own website. The label states what the record holds, links to this page and updates by itself. It is free and needs no sign-in.
Content
Automatic: the three strongest facts of this project’s own record (its last audit and two more), highlighted. They update with the record. Picking a fact turns Automatic off.
Style
Format
<head><script src="https://widget.trustblock.run/project-widget.min.js" defer></script></head><body><divdata-tb-project-widgetdata-tb-project-slug="kuku"></div></body>
Paste the code where the label should appear. It uses no API credit and updates by itself.
Something 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