Preliminary Vulnerability Assessment for `jetton-minter.fc`

[David Build]

Preliminary Vulnerability Assessment for jetton-minter.fc

1. Admin Rights and Access Control:

The contract includes admin_address and next_admin_address, suggesting a mechanism for transferring administrative control. A critical area of vulnerability could be the process by which admin rights are transferred or assigned. Improper validation of the new admin address or the conditions under which admin rights are transferred could allow unauthorized users to gain control.

Issue: Improper access control can allow unauthorized users to perform actions meant only for the administrator, such as updating contract parameters or minting tokens.

Example:

function changeAdmin(address newAdmin) public {
    // Vulnerability: Any caller can change the admin
    admin_address = newAdmin;
}

Mitigation: You need to make sure that only the current administrator can modify administrator rights.

function changeAdmin(address newAdmin) public {
    require(msg.sender == admin_address, "Only the admin can perform this action");
    admin_address = newAdmin;
}

2. Minting Functionality

Issue: Unauthorized minting can lead to inflation or unexpected increases in token supply.

Example:

function mint(address recipient, uint256 amount) public {
    // Vulnerability: There's no check on who can call this function
    _mint(recipient, amount);
}

Mitigation: Restrict minting to specific roles or addresses:

function mint(address recipient, uint256 amount) public {
    require(msg.sender == minter, "Only the designated minter can mint new tokens");
    _mint(recipient, amount);
}

3. Integer Overflow/Underflow

Issue: Performing arithmetic operations without validation can lead to values wrapping around the maximum or minimum value, corrupting the contract state.

Example:

function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) public {
    // Vulnerability: balance subtraction could underflow if amount > balances[msg.sender]
    balances[msg.sender] -= amount;
    balances[recipient] += amount;
}

Mitigation: Use SafeMath library or similar mechanisms to prevent overflows and underflows:

function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) public {
    balances[msg.sender] = balances[msg.sender].sub(amount); // SafeMath's sub() reverts on underflow
    balances[recipient] = balances[recipient].add(amount); // SafeMath's add() reverts on overflow
}

4. Reentrancy Attacks

Issue: Calling external contracts without proper precautions can allow attackers to re-enter the calling contract, leading to vulnerabilities such as draining funds.

Example:

function withdraw(uint amount) public {
    // Vulnerability: External call before updating the state
    (bool success, ) = msg.sender.call.value(amount)("");
    require(success, "Transfer failed.");
    balances[msg.sender] -= amount;
}

Mitigation: Use the Checks-Effects-Interactions pattern and consider reentrancy guards:

function withdraw(uint amount) public nonReentrant { // nonReentrant is a modifier preventing re-entrancy
    require(balances[msg.sender] >= amount, "Insufficient balance");
    balances[msg.sender] -= amount; // State change before the call
    (bool success, ) = msg.sender.call.value(amount)("");
    require(success, "Transfer failed.");
}

5. Inadequate Validation of Inputs or External Calls

Issue: Failing to validate inputs or the outcomes of external calls can lead to unexpected behavior or vulnerabilities.

Example:

function updateTokenAddress(address newTokenAddress) public {
    // Vulnerability: No validation on the new address
    tokenAddress = newTokenAddress;
}

Mitigation: Always validate inputs and external call results:

function updateTokenAddress(address newTokenAddress) public {
    require(newTokenAddress != address(0), "Invalid address");
    tokenAddress = newTokenAddress;
}

Thanks!

[ProgramCrafter]

This issue is not related to code in repository in any way.

[Enengy]

I also agreed

[Tolya]

Text generated by ChatGPT, quirky mix of Solidity and FunC.