Unipilot Farming Audit Report

Table Of Content



BlockApex (Auditor) was contracted by Voirstudio (Client) for the purpose of conducting a Smart Contract Audit/Code Review. This document presents the findings of our analysis which took place on   _9th November 2021___ . 

Name: Unipilot Farming
Auditor: Moazzam Arif | Muhammad Jarir ud din
Platform: Ethereum/Solidity
Type of review: Staking and Farming
Methods: Architecture Review, Functional Testing, Computer-Aided Verification, Manual Review
Git repository: https://github.com/VoirStudio/unipilot-farming-contract/tree/dev
White paper/ Documentation: UnipilotFarm Contract Checklist
Document log: Initial audit completed on 12th November 2021, Final audit completed on 15th November 2021


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:

Code reviewFunctional review
Reentrancy Unchecked external callBusiness Logics Review
Ownership TakeoverERC20 API violationFunctionality Checks
Timestamp DependenceUnchecked mathAccess Control & Authorization
Gas Limit and LoopsUnsafe type inferenceEscrow manipulation
DoS with (Unexpected) ThrowImplicit visibility levelToken Supply manipulation
DoS with Block Gas LimitDeployment ConsistencyAsset’s integrity
Transaction-Ordering DependenceRepository ConsistencyUser Balances manipulation
Style guide violationData ConsistencyKill-Switch Mechanism
Costly LoopOperation Trails & Event Generation

Project Overview

Unipilot yield farming incentivizes LPs to earn $PILOT by staking their Unipilot NFT of whitelisted pools.

System Architecture

Unipilot yield farming has 1 main smart contract.

UnipilotFarm.sol: Smart contract which allows LPs to earn $PILOT by staking their Unipilot NFTs. UnipilotFarm linearly distributes the $PILOT according to rewardPerBlock and rewardMultiplier

unipilot farming image 1

Methodology & Scope

The codebase was audited in an incremental way. Fixes were applied on the way and were re-audited. We used a static analysis tool (slither) which indicated the reentrancy bug in the code. We did manual reviews of the code to find logical bugs and the bugs reported by the automated tools.


Executive Summary

The analysis indicates that 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 and Slither. All the flags raised were manually reviewed and re-tested. 

Our team found

# of issues Severity of the risk
1Critical Risk issue(s)
1High Risk issue(s)
2Medium Risk issue(s)
3Low Risk issue(s)
0Informatory issue(s)


Critical-risk issues

  1. DOS in deposit

The smart contract maintains a global reward per LP share as the pool's globalReward. It is calculated as the following formula:

globalReward = FullMath.mulDiv(blockDifference.mul(temp), 

When the last user in the pool withdraws his Unipilot NFT, totalLockedLiquidity is
set to 0. When the next user tries to deposit in the same pool, the contract throws an error (div by 0).


This edge case should be handled.

Dev’s Response:

They acknowledged and fixed by resetting the pool’s variables when the last users removes NFT


Fixed and Verified

High-risk issues

  1. Reentrancy when distributing Alt token Rewards

Unipilot also helps other tokens (specially new tokens) to gain traction by rewarding LPs with this Alt token. So the LPs will be rewarded $PILOT and $ALT_TOKEN. Now when the user claims his reward, Unipilot transfers the shares of $ALT_TOKEN but updates the user reward debt after transferring. Now if the $ALT_TOKEN is ERC777, reentrancy is possible. Although it uses IERC20, but it will work with ERC777 tokens

IERC20(poolAltState.altToken).safeTransfer(userInfo[_tokenId].user, altReward);
poolAltState.lastRewardBlock = block.number;


Update all state variables before transfer. And also use ReentrancyGuard.

Dev’s Response:

We already have used nonReentrant modifier in the new commit


Fixed and verified

It is good to communicate the changes earlier, so the auditor know beforehand the commit he is auditing

Medium-risk issues

  1. Wrong assumption in require statement

In depositNft the smart contract assumes that the user shares of liquidity should be less than totalLiquidity in the pool and shares of liquidity should be greater than zero. But in the following line it uses or( || ) instead of and (&&) operator

 require(totalLiquidity >= liquidity || liquidity > 0, "IL");


AND (&&) should be used.

Dev’s Response



Not Fixed yet

  1. Unfair Reward distribution when pilotPerBlock is changed


There is a global variable pilotPerBlock which is used to calculate the $PILOT reward and act as a multiplier. This variable can be updated via governance. But When this variable is updated, it multiplies with the whole duration of staking.


Implement a mechanism like updating the rewardMultiplier of the pool by looping on all pools. Or just remove pilotPerBlock and just use rewardMultiplier to adjust pool rewards

Dev’s Response:

Acknowledged and will loop on all pools


Fixed and Verified

Low-risk issues

1. Missing Event in migrateFunds

2. Wrong event in updateUnipilot

3. Remove unused imports like LiquidityAmount.sol

Informatory issues and Optimization

No issues were found


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 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.

Also, checkout our Hack Analyses!

More Audits

SAFEMOON - March 29, 2023

Safemoon suffered an attack in which the SFM/BNB pool was drained, resulting in a loss of $8.9M worth of ‘locked LP’. The attack was carried out by exploiting a vulnerability in the new Safemoon contract that allowed anyone to burn SFM tokens from any address, thus inflating the price of SFM tokens in the pool.

Infiltrating the EVM-I: Demystifying Smart Contracts & Auditing

Infiltrating the EVM-I: Demystifying Smart Contracts & Auditing comprises of information about compilation breakdown of solidity code, the vulnerable components of blockchain ecosystem and how Smart contract auditing is crucial.

ZeroLiquid Protocol - Audit Report

BlockApex (Auditor) was contracted by ZeroLiquid (Client) to conduct a Smart Contract Audit/ Code Review. This document presents the findings of our analysis, which started on 11th July ‘2023.

The Big Fuzz Theory: Fuzzing Primer

Fuzz testing, or fuzzing, is a technique used to improve the security of software, including smart contracts in Solidity. It involves supplying random or unexpected data as inputs to a system in an attempt to break it and uncover vulnerabilities that manual testing might miss. Fuzzers generate a set of inputs for testing scenarios that may have been missed during unit testing, helping to identify bugs and potential security issues.

Dexible - February 20, 2023

The Dexible hack affected a total of 17 user accounts, with the majority of losses coming from a single address belonging to BlockTower Capital, a prominent investment firm.

Tornado Cash: A Force For Good Or Evil?

The dual nature of Tornado Cash brings forth layers of doubt surrounding its morality. Who benefits more from using Tornado Cash? The average man concerned about his privacy, or a criminal with millions of dollars worth of stolen funds?

Dforce Network - February 13, 2023

The attack on dForce network had significant consequences for the platform and its users. By exploiting a reentrancy vulnerability in the wstETH/ETH pool on Curve and the dForce wstETH/ETH Vault, the attacker was able to manipulate the virtual price of the pool, which in turn affected the oracle used by the dForce wstETH/ETH Vault

Sonar Bridge V2 Initial Audit

BlockApex (Auditor) was contracted by SONAR (Client) for the purpose of conducting a Smart Contract Audit/Code Review for Sonar Bridge V2. This document presents the findings of our analysis which took place on 28th September 2021.

Polkalokr Matic Bridge Contract Audit Report

The analysis indicates that the contracts audited are secured and follow the best practices.
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 Slither, and Manticore. All the flags raised were manually reviewed and re-tested.

1 2 3 11
Designed & Developed by: 
All rights reserved. Copyright 2023