Rigor Protocol contest - SooYa's results

Community lending and instant payments for new home construction.

General Information

Platform: Code4rena

Start Date: 01/08/2022

Pot Size: $50,000 USDC

Total HM: 26

Participants: 133

Period: 5 days

Judge: Jack the Pug

Total Solo HM: 6

Id: 151

League: ETH

Rigor Protocol

Findings Distribution

Researcher Performance

Rank: 78/133

Findings: 2

Award: $62.35

🌟 Selected for report: 0

🚀 Solo Findings: 0

No check for at least 1 task with a budget > 0

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Community.sol#L206 the doc says that you canot submit a project with no total budget. therefore it require at least one task with a budget > 0. this will allows builder to publish their project which doesnt has a task in it or tasks with 0 budget.

Update to the recent solidity version

Currently now use the solidity 0.8.6 version, and its better to upgrade the solidity to the latest version

TYPOS

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Disputes.sol#L179 // Revert is signer is not builder, contractor or subcontractor. should change is with if after revert.

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Project.sol#L379 // If balance is present then it to the builder. Should be add transfer after then word.

> 0 is less efficient than != 0 for unsigned integers (with proof)

!= 0 costs less gas compared to > 0 for unsigned integers in require statements with the optimizer enabled (6 gas)

Proof: While it may seem that > 0 is cheaper than !=, this is only true without the optimizer enabled and outside a require statement. If you enable the optimizer at 10k AND you’re in a require statement, this will save gas. You can see this tweet for more proofs: https://twitter.com/gzeon/status/1485428085885640706 I suggest changing > 0 with != 0 here:

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Project.sol#L195 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Community.sol#L764

for loops can be more efficient

To optimize the for loop and make it consume less gas, i suggest to:

  1. If a variable is not set/initialized, it is assumed to have the default value (0 for uint, false for bool, address(0) for address…). Explicitly initializing it with its default value is an anti-pattern and wastes gas.

  2. Use ++i instead of i++, which is a cheaper operation (in this case there is no difference between i++ and ++i because we dont use the return value of this expression, which is the only difference between these two expression).

  3. Reading array length at each iteration of the loop takes 6 gas (3 for mload and 3 to place memory_offset) in the stack.

Caching the array length in the stack saves around 3 gas per iteration. I suggest storing the array’s length in a variable before the for-loop.

As an example:

for (uint256 i = 0; i < numIterations.length; ++i) {

should be replaced with

for (uint256 i; i < newVariable; ++i) {

I suggest to change the code here:

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Project.sol#L248 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Project.sol#L311 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Project.sol#L322 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Project.sol#L710 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Community.sol#L624 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Project.sol#L368

consider using require instead of &&

SPLITTING REQUIRE() STATEMENTS THAT USE && SAVES GAS Instead of using the && operator in a single require statement to check multiple conditions, I suggest using multiple require statements with 1 condition per require statement (saving 3 gas per &):

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Disputes.sol#L61 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Disputes.sol#L106 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/b17b2a11d04289f9e927c71703b42771dd7b86a4/contracts/Community.sol#L353

AuditHub

A portfolio for auditors, a security profile for protocols, a hub for web3 security.

Built bymalatrax © 2024

Auditors

Browse

Contests

Browse

Get in touch

ContactTwitter