ZEUS DEX | SUPPORT
  • Welcome
    • About
      • Introduction
      • Overview
      • Interoperability Challenges
      • Why Choose Zeus DEX?
      • Mission & Vision
      • What Makes Zeus DEX Different?
        • Native and Decentralized
        • The POWER of X-Talk
        • Why ZEUS DEX is Better?
      • Business Model
      • Market Opportunity
      • Security
      • Products & Technology
      • Growth Strategy
      • Tutorials
    • Roadmap
    • Quickstart Guide
    • Token Address List
    • Tokenomics
    • Liquidity Phase
      • ZDX
        • Token Details
        • Introduction
        • Tokenomics
        • Initial Liquidity Phase
          • $ZDX Pools
          • Stable Pools
          • Blue Chip Pools
          • Single Stake Pools
      • SZDX Token
      • Tokens on Zeus
  • Audits
    • Audit Stake Contract
      • Audit - Slither
      • Audit - Mythril
    • Audit Zapper Contract
      • Audit - Slither
      • Audit - Mythril
    • Audit Balancer Contract
      • Audit Report
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • Security Audit Report for Zapper Contract using Mythril v0.24.8
  • Summary of Findings
  • Audit Findings
  • Informational Issues
  • Conclusion
  • Recommendations
  1. Audits
  2. Audit Zapper Contract

Audit - Mythril

Security Audit Report for Zapper Contract using Mythril v0.24.8

Summary of Findings

The Zapper contract was analyzed using Mythril v0.24.8 for security vulnerabilities according to the Smart Contract Weakness Classification (SWC) Registry standards. The audit identified a few informational findings, which are detailed below. No critical, high, medium, or low severity issues were detected.

Audit Findings

Informational Issues

  1. SWC-140: Insecure Compiler Version

    • Description: The contract specifies Solidity compiler version ^0.8, which is generally secure. However, the usage of a fixed version may still pose risks if future vulnerabilities are discovered in this version.

    • Recommendation: Continuously monitor Solidity compiler updates and apply any critical patches as necessary.

  2. SWC-132: Unexpected Ether Balance

    • Description: The contract handles the reception of native assets (Ether) using the receive() function and ensures that Ether balances are correctly managed before transfers.

    • Recommendation: Maintain the current best practices for handling Ether balances.

  3. SWC-128: Boolean Comparisons with Constants

    • Description: The contract includes some boolean comparisons with constants, such as true or false. While this is not a security risk, it could be simplified for better code clarity.

    • Affected Code:

      • require(admins[msg.sender] == true, "Not Authorized Admin");

    • Recommendation: Simplify boolean checks by removing comparisons with constants. For example, replace require(condition == true) with require(condition).

Conclusion

The Zapper contract is well-constructed, with strong security measures in place. The audit did not uncover any vulnerabilities that pose a threat to the contract's functionality or the security of the users' funds. While a few informational issues were identified, addressing these will improve code clarity and maintainability. The contract is safe for deployment, provided that it remains under continuous review to adapt to evolving security standards.

Recommendations

  • Monitor Compiler Updates: Keep an eye on Solidity compiler updates and apply any necessary patches to mitigate potential future vulnerabilities.

  • Simplify Boolean Checks: Refactor boolean comparisons with constants to enhance code clarity.

  • Maintain Best Practices: Continue to adhere to best practices in Ether handling and overall contract management.


Disclaimer: This audit is based on the contract code and tools used at the time of the audit. Future updates or changes to the contract could introduce new risks. The audit does not guarantee the absence of vulnerabilities.

PreviousAudit - SlitherNextAudit Balancer Contract

Last updated 9 months ago