iosiro was commissioned by the ixo.world to conduct an audit on their token and protocol smart contracts. The audit was performed between 10 September 2018 and 20 September 2018.
This report is organized into the following sections.
The information in this report should be used to understand the risk exposure of the smart contracts, and as a guide to improve the security posture of the smart contracts by remediating the issues that were identified. The results of this audit are only a reflection of the source code reviewed at the time of the audit and of the source code that was determined to be in-scope.
This report presents the findings of an audit performed by iosiro on the ixo token and protocol smart contracts. The purpose of the audit was to achieve the following.
Due to the unregulated nature and ease of transfer of cryptocurrencies, operations that store or interact with these assets are considered very high risk with regards to cyber attacks. As such, the highest level of security should be observed when interacting with these assets. This requires a forward-thinking approach, which takes into account the new and experimental nature of blockchain technologies. There are a number of techniques that can help to achieve this, some of which are described below.
At the conclusion of the audit, only informational findings and design recommendations remained open. These included minor deviations from best practice, unnecessary variable declaration, and instances where code could be simplified.
Despite the findings, the code was of a relatively high standard. This was evident in the use of modularized code, as well as making use of commonly used libraries where reasonable.
The risk posed by the smart contracts can be further mitigated by using the following controls prior to releasing the contracts to a production environment.
The source code considered in-scope for the assessment is described below. Code from any other files are considered to be out-of-scope.
A variety of techniques were used to perform the audit, these are outlined below.
The contracts were compiled, deployed, and tested using both Truffle tests and manually on a local test network. A number of pre-existing tests were included in the project.
Tools were used to automatically detect the presence of potential vulnerabilities, such as reentrancy, timestamp dependency bugs, transaction-ordering dependency bugs, and so on. Static analysis was conducted using Mythril and Oyente. Additional tools, such as the Remix IDE, compilation output and linters were used to identify potential security flaws.
Source code was manually reviewed to identify potential security flaws. This type of analysis is useful for detecting business logic flaws and edge-cases that may not be detected through dynamic or static analysis.
Each Issue identified during the audit is assigned a risk rating. The rating is dependent on the criteria outlined below..
The following section outlines the intended functionality of the smart contracts.
The ixo protocol token is described below.
The token should implement the ERC-20 standard.
Tokens may be minted until the supply cap is reached. It should only be possible for the designated minter address to mint new tokens.
The functionality of the ixo protocol smart contracts is described below.
Project wallets should support storing and transferring any single ERC-20 compliant token.
Project wallets should be recorded according to their projectDID in a central project wallet registry contract. Additionally, it should be possible for the registry to instantiate new wallets associated with a projectDID.
Transfer requests can be initiated by designated members set by the contract owner. A transfer must only be triggered once a set quorum of members is reached.
A wallet authoriser contract is used to allow the authorisation scheme to be changed for a wallet by the contract owner. This means that while the current configuration requires a certain quorum of members to be reached before a transfer is approved, different requirements could be implemented at a later stage.
The following section includes in depth descriptions of the findings of the audit.
No high risk issues were present at the conclusion of the audit.
No medium risk issues were present at the conclusion of the audit.
No low risk issues were present at the conclusion of the audit.
Actions to improve the functionality and readability of the codebase are outlined below.
validate(...)should be reverted after action is triggered
AuthContract.sol: Lines 66-68
It was found that the
if statement used to check whether an action had already been triggered returned
true if the action had already been triggered. Although strictly not a security issue, it would be more appropriate to simply use
require and have the function revert in the case that the action had already been triggered. This will reduce the gas cost of subsequent calls to
validate(...) from members after the action has already been triggered and return a more logical result considering no transfer of tokens would take place. An example of the code is below:
require(!actions[_tx].triggered, "Already triggered");
ProjectWalletAuthoriser.sol: Line 18
It was found that the
setAuthoriser(..) function explicitly defined a return type of
bool which was unused in the function body. Although strictly not a security or functional issue, it should be removed in order to adhere to best practice.
transfer(...)functions with no return value in function body
ProjectWalletAuthoriser.sol: Line 35, BasicProjectWallet.sol: Line 42
In several cases, the
transfer(...) function was specified with the return type
bool, however the functions in question did not return the result of the transfer. It is recommended that the functions in question return the result of the transfer to adhere to best practice.
Triggeredevents should index the transaction ID
AuthContract.sol: Lines 25-26
It was found that the logging events
Triggered did not use the keyword
indexed on the
id parameter. Indexing the
id parameter would allow for the transaction events to be searched and filtered by users, providing better transparency and logging. It is thus recommended that the
indexed keyword be used.
requirevalidation failure messages
AuthContract.sol: Lines 81-84
It was found that several validation error messages had improper messages associated with them. Although strictly not a security or functional issue, it should be resolved to provide better feedback in cases where validation fails.
AuthContract.sol and ixoERC20Token.sol
It was found that several properties and functions contained implicit
uint type declarations. It is suggested that these
uint type declarations be replaced by the
uint256 type declaration instead in order to adhere to best practice.
The pragma version was not fixed to a specific version, as it specified
^0.4.24, which would result in using the highest non-breaking version (highest version below
0.5.0). According to best practice, where possible, all contracts should use the same compiler version, which should be fixed to a specific version. This helps to ensure that contracts do not accidentally get deployed using an alternative compiler, which may pose the risk of unidentified bugs. An explicit version also helps with code reuse, as users would be able to see the author’s intended compiler version. It is recommended that the pragma version is changed to a fixed value, for example
AuthContract.sol: lines 58 - 85
Several high risk security issues were identified in the
validate(...) function. These are outlined below.
It was possible for a single member to call
validate(...) several times in order to reach the required quorum for a transaction. This vulnerability resulted in any one member being able to trigger an event without requiring interaction from any other members. The issue originated from there being no check for whether the member had already confirmed the action.
It is recommended that logic is added to prevent a member from being able to call the function more than once. This could be implemented by using a mapping of addresses to booleans, which stores whether a given member has called the
validate(...) function. This mapping should then be referenced to determine whether a member is permitted to call the function.
A vulnerability was identified that allowed an action to be called repeatedly once the quorum had been reached. While line 88 of AuthContract.sol set
true, line 74 of AuthContract.sol set the value back to false, effectively resetting the status of the action. Once the action had been triggered, it would simply require calling the
validate(...) function again to reset the triggered status and perform the action again.
It is recommended that an assertion is performed to verify that the triggered status is false. For example:
require(!actions[_tx].triggered, "Already triggered");
Additionally, line 79 should be modified to require exactly the number of confirmations, instead of greater or equal to the number of confirmations.
As the values of the action were set (lines 70 - 75) on each call to
validate(...), it would be possible for the last member calling the function to modify all of the values of the action. This would allow a malicious member to wait for
quorum-1 confirmations before submitting their confirmation with their desired values.
It is recommended that the logic of the function is modified to only allow the values for an action to be set when the action is created (
confirmations == 0).
Fixed in f7ca254.
Interested in getting your smart contracts audited? Request a Quote
This is a limited report on our findings based on our analysis, in accordance with good industry practice as at the date of this report, in relation to: (i) cybersecurity vulnerabilities and issues in the smart contract source code analysed, the details of which are set out in this report, (Source Code); and (ii) the Source Code compiling, deploying and performing the intended functions. In order to get a full view of our findings and the scope of our analysis, it is crucial for you to read the full report. While we have done our best in conducting our analysis and producing this report, it is important to note that you should not rely on this report and cannot claim against us on the basis of what it says or doesn’t say, or how we produced it, and it is important for you to conduct your own independent investigations before making any decisions. We go into more detail on this in the below disclaimer below – please make sure to read it in full.
DISCLAIMER: By reading this report or any part of it, you agree to the terms of this disclaimer. If you do not agree to the terms, then please immediately cease reading this report, and delete and destroy any and all copies of this report downloaded and/or printed by you. This report is provided for information purposes only and on a non-reliance basis, and does not constitute investment advice. No one shall have any right to rely on the report or its contents, and Zenoic Proprietary Limited trading as “Iosiro” and its affiliates (including holding companies, shareholders, subsidiaries, employees, directors, officers and other representatives) (Iosiro) owe no duty of care towards you or any other person, nor does Iosiro make any warranty or representation to any person on the accuracy or completeness of the report. The report is provided "as is", without any conditions, warranties or other terms of any kind except as set out in this disclaimer, and Iosiro hereby excludes all representations, warranties, conditions and other terms (including, without limitation, the warranties implied by law of satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and the use of reasonable care and skill) which, but for this clause, might have effect in relation to the report. Except and only to the extent that it is prohibited by law, Iosiro hereby excludes all liability and responsibility, and neither you nor any other person shall have any claim against Iosiro, for any amount or kind of loss or damage that may result to you or any other person (including without limitation, any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or pure economic loss or damages, or any loss of income, profits, goodwill, data, contracts, use of money, or business interruption, and whether in delict, tort (including without limitation negligence), contract, breach of statutory duty, misrepresentation (whether innocent or negligent) or otherwise under any claim of any nature whatsoever in any jurisdiction) in any way arising from or connected with this report and the use, inability to use or the results of use of this report, and any reliance on this report.