YFFII Smart Contract Audit

Introduction

CoinFabrik was asked to audit the contracts for the YFFII project. First we will provide a summary of our discoveries and then we will show the details of our findings.

Summary

The contracts audited are the contracts deployed at 0x91a06884F6db45FF499cC2f7C6f3eb60a617D5AE and 0x900E9bAEc63BcdB9FBb0D9743326360e6AE4B2dB.

Contracts

The audited contracts are:

Controller.sol (md5: 304e66a01ff2b10b81763a06f09bc6e2)
YearnRewards.sol (md5: a6937e2f61dcabc8bca2825bd45e485e)

Analyses

The following analyses were performed:

Misuse of the different call methods
Integer overflow errors
Division by zero errors
Outdated version of Solidity compiler
Front running attacks
Reentrancy attacks
Misuse of block timestamps
Softlock denial of service attacks
Functions with excessive gas cost
Missing or misused function qualifiers
Needlessly complex code and contract interactions
Poor or nonexistent error handling
Failure to use a withdrawal pattern
Insufficient validation of the input parameters
Incorrect handling of cryptographic signatures

Detailed findings

Severity Classification

Security risks are classified as follows:

Critical: These are issues that we manage to exploit. They compromise the system seriously. They must be fixed immediately.
Medium: These are potentially exploitable issues. Even though we did not manage to exploit them or their impact is not clear, they might represent a security risk in the near future. We suggest fixing them as soon as possible.
Minor: These issues represent problems that are relatively small or difficult to take advantage of but can be exploited in combination with other issues. These kinds of issues do not block deployments in production environments. They should be taken into account and be fixed when possible.
Enhancement: These kinds of findings do not represent a security risk. They are best practices that we suggest to implement.

This classification is summarized in the following table:

SEVERITY	EXPLOITABLE	ROADBLOCK	TO BE FIXED
Critical	Yes	Yes	Immediately
Medium	In the near future	Yes	As soon as possible
Minor	Unlikely	No	Eventually
Enhancement	No	No	Eventually

Issues Found by Severity

Critical severity

No issues of critical severity found.

Medium severity

No issues of medium severity found

Minor severity

No issues of minor severity found

Enhancements

Outdated Solidity compiler version

The latest Solidity compiler version currently available is 0.7.4, switching from 0.5.x to 0.7.x involves modifying the code however given that the project is still small, we recommend considering to do so as it would allow you to enjoy the latest bug fixes and gas optimization changes to the date.

If you wish to stay with the 0.5.16 version we recommend not using a floating pragma as it allows older versions of 0.5.x to be used, the following pragma is more appropriate: pragma solidity 0.5.16;

Commonly used require statements can be changed to modifiers

Currently the following require statement can be seen in many functions through the code:

require(msg.sender == governance, "!governance");

This can be refactored into using a modifier, so that only an extra word needs to be used in each function header when needed:

modifier onlyGovernance {
 require(msg.sender == governance, "!governance");
 _;
}

[···]

function setRewards(address _rewards) public onlyGovernance {
        rewards = _rewards;
}

The same can be done with the following require statement:

require(msg.sender == strategist || msg.sender == governance, "!governance");

Like this:

modifier onlyGovernanceOrStrategist {
 require(msg.sender == strategist || msg.sender == governance, "!governance");
 _;
}

[···]

function inCaseTokensGetStuck(address _token, uint _amount) public onlyGovernanceOrStrategist {
    IERC20(_token).safeTransfer(msg.sender, _amount);
}

This change is merely for reducing code complexity and does not change the logic in any way.

Conclusion

We found the contracts to be simple and straightforward and to have an overall good quality code.

A large part of the logic is done in external contracts, it is very important that you make sure to always use the correct addresses referring to trusted and verified contracts, and that these can not get changed by external parties.

Disclaimer: This audit report is not a security warranty, investment advice, or an approval of the YFFII project since CoinFabrik has not reviewed its platform. Moreover, it does not provide a smart contract code faultlessness guarantee. External contracts have not been audited by CoinFabrik and were assumed to work properly during this audit.

El post YFFII Smart Contract Audit apareció primero en CoinFabrik Blog.

Text source: CoinFabrik Blog

Smart Contract Audit