Flower Fam NFT Audit Report

INTRODUCTION

BlockApex (Auditor) was contracted by Flower Fam (Client) for the purpose of conducting a Smart Contract Audit/ Code Review. This document presents the findings of our analysis which started on 19 May 2022. 

Scope

The Git-repository shared was checked for common code violations along with vulnerability-specific probing to detect major issues/vulnerabilities. Some specific checks are as follows:

Project Overview

FlowerFam is an NFT-based project, after you mint your NFT you can “harvest” them on weekly basis to get 60% royalties. It's quite simple: every flower has a 10% chance to win. The rarer the species of a flower. Besides the weekly harvest, flowers can make $honeycoin through a lot of other fun activities in the Oasis. You can earn $honeycoin by staking your Flower, catching bees, and buying seeds that grow into beautiful new Flowers.

System Architecture

FlowerFam is a single NFT minter contract which is composed of three other contracts, FloweFam.sol , FlowerFamMintPass.sol and FlowerFamEcosystem.sol. This contract is used to make users whitelist so that only whitelisted addresses would be able to mint NFTs.

Methodology & Scope

The codebase was audited in an iterative process. Fixes were applied on the way and updated contracts were examined for more bugs. We used a combination of static analysis tool (slither) and testing framework (Foundry) which indicated some of the critical bugs. We also did manual reviews of the code to find logical bugs, code optimizations, solidity design patterns, code style and the bugs/ issues detected by automated tools.

AUDIT REPORT

Executive Summary

The analysis indicates that some of the functionalities in the contracts audited are working properly.

Our team performed a technique called “Filtered Audit”, where the contract was separately audited by two individuals. After their thorough and rigorous process of manual testing, an automated review was carried out using Mythril, MythX, Surya and Slither. All the flags raised were manually reviewed and re-tested. 

Our team found:

# of issues	Severity of the risk
0	Critical Risk issue(s)
0	High-Risk issue(s)
1	Medium Risk issue(s)
4	Low-Risk issue(s)
4	Informatory issue(s)

Findings

Medium-risk issues

1. Centralization risk.

Description: 

Heavy centralization risk using onlyowner check on withdraw() function, assuming owner address is never compromised else it might lead to lost funds. 

function withdraw(address _to) external onlyOwner {
        uint256 balance = address(this).balance;
        require(balance > 0, "Balance zero");
        payable(_to).transfer(balance);
    }

Status:

Resolved

Low-risk issues

2. setMerkleRootOfRound() can overwrite mapping

Description: 

The current implementation of the above function can override the mapping roundToMerkleRoot which can lead to loss of round minting for any of the four rounds.

Status: 

Acknowledged

Remedy: 

Place a check to ensure the root can only be set if the round has completed the  preset timeline.

3. Configuration inconsistency:

Description: 

Calling the functions setMintLimitOfRound or setMaxSupplyOfRound during a round can lead to inconsistencies of assumed configurations of the minting system.

Status: 

Acknowledged

Remedy: 

Owner can change configurations during the minting rounds and can lead to inconsistent management of user NFTs.

4. Withdraw function argument validation check

Description: 

Withdraw() function is only callable by owner but still there is a chance of mistake. Function only checks for the amount it should also check for the value owner sends from the arguments.

Status: 

Fixed

Remedy: 

There should be a zero address check inside the function.

5. Recommendation for missing function in the contract file as received by the client.

Description: 

The contract IFlowerFamMintPass contains a function named validPasssesLeft which is incompatible with the original files received later (out of scope) containing a similar function named as userPassesLeft().

Status: 

Acknowledged

Remedy: 

Ensure the functions are named properly and following the implemented interface architecture of the file system.

Informatory issues

6. No NatSpec Documentation

Description: 

NatSpec documentation is an essential part of smart contract readability; it is therefore advised that the contract and following files should contain proper explanatory commenting;

• FlowerFamMinter.sol

Status:

Acknowledged

7. Order of Functions

Description: 

Move receive() function right below the constructor. Move most useable/callable (Public/External) functions right below the constructor and internal functions right below the public functions as suggested in the solidity docs:

“Ordering helps readers identify which functions they can call and to find the constructor and fallback definitions easier”.

Functions should be grouped according to their visibility and ordered:

constructor
receive function (if exists)
fallback function (if exists)
external
public
internal
private

Status:

Fixed

8. Unchecked setter values

Description: 

All setter values are unchecked and can lead to redundant calling setter functions. There should be a zero value check in following functions:

setMintDuration()
StartTimeWL()
setStartTimeGiveaway()
setStartTimeRaffle()
setStartTimeWaitlist()
setMaxSupplyOfRound() 
setMintLimitOfRound()
setMerkleRootOfRound()

Status:

Acknowledged

9. Interface Instead of Contract

Description: 

Contracts named IFlowerFam and IFlowerFamMintPass can be changed for interface type.

Status: 

Fixed

Remedy: 

Ensure that the contracts are retyped as interfaces and reflect all consequential changes e.g. 

• In IFlowerFamMintPass contract, the function balanceOf() be marked with external accessibility
• In the IFlowerFam contract, the function named ownerOf() can be marked as external accessible.

DISCLAIMER

The smart contracts provided by the client for audit purposes have been thoroughly analyzed in compliance with the global best practices till date w.r.t cybersecurity vulnerabilities and issues in smart contract code, the details of which are enclosed in this report. 

This report is not an endorsement or indictment of the project or team, and they do not in any way guarantee the security of the particular object in context. This report is not considered, and should not be interpreted as an influence, on the potential economics of the token, its sale or any other aspect of the project. 

Crypto assets/tokens are the results of the emerging blockchain technology in the domain of decentralized finance and they carry with them high levels of technical risk and uncertainty. No report provides any warranty or representation to any third-Party in any respect, including regarding the bug-free nature of code, the business model or proprietors of any such business model, and the legal compliance of any such business. No third party should rely on the reports in any way, including for the purpose of making any decisions to buy or sell any token, product, service or other asset. Specifically, for the avoidance of doubt, this report does not constitute investment advice, is not intended to be relied upon as investment advice, is not an endorsement of this project or team, and it is not a guarantee as to the absolute security of the project.

Smart contracts are deployed and executed on a blockchain. The platform, its programming language, and other software related to the smart contract can have its vulnerabilities that can lead to hacks. The scope of our review is limited to a review of the Solidity code and only the Solidity code we note as being within the scope of our review within this report. The Solidity language itself remains under development and is subject to unknown risks and flaws. The review does not extend to the compiler layer, or any other areas beyond Solidity that could present security risks.

This audit cannot be considered as a sufficient assessment regarding the utility and safety of the code, bug-free status or any other statements of the contract. While we have done our best in conducting the analysis and producing this report, it is important to note that you should not rely on this report only - we recommend proceeding with several independent audits and a public bug bounty program to ensure security of smart contracts.