Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 27/10/2022
Pot Size: $33,500 USDC
Total HM: 8
Participants: 96
Period: 3 days
Judge: kirk-baird
Total Solo HM: 1
Id: 176
League: ETH
Rank: 39/96
Findings: 2
Award: $31.16
🌟 Selected for report: 0
🚀 Solo Findings: 0
🌟 Selected for report: robee
Also found by: 0x007, 0x1f8b, 0x52, 0xDjango, 0xNazgul, 0xSmartContract, 8olidity, Awesome, B2, Bnke0x0, Chom, Diana, Dravee, JTJabba, Jeiwan, Josiah, Lambda, Mathieu, Picodes, RaoulSchaffranek, RaymondFam, RedOneN, ReyAdmirado, Rolezn, Ruhum, Sm4rty, Tricko, Trust, Waze, __141345__, a12jmx, adriro, ajtra, brgltd, c3phas, carlitox477, cccz, ch0bu, chaduke, chrisdior4, corerouter, cryptonue, csanuragjain, ctf_sec, cylzxje, delfin454000, dic0de, djxploit, horsefacts, imare, jayphbee, jwood, ktg, ladboy233, leosathya, lukris02, minhtrng, neko_nyaa, oyc_109, pashov, peritoflores, rbserver, rvierdiiev, shark, tnevler, yixxas
19.6449 USDC - $19.64
Checking addresses against zero-address during initialization in constructor is a security best-practice. However, such checks are missing in multiple constructors.
 Allowing zero-addresses will lead to contract reverts and force redeployments if there are no setters for such address variables. So we recommend to Add zero-address checks in the constructors.
to avoid zero address in parameter input. we suggest to add zero check address to the function.
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-paladin/blob/d6d0c0e57ad80f15e9691086c9c7270d4ccfe0e6/contracts/WardenPledge.sol#L85 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-paladin/blob/d6d0c0e57ad80f15e9691086c9c7270d4ccfe0e6/contracts/WardenPledge.sol#L115
event is missing indexed fields in important parameter. we recommend indexed at important field for increase creadibility.
#0 - c4-judge
2022-11-12T00:53:08Z
kirk-baird marked the issue as grade-b
🌟 Selected for report: c3phas
Also found by: 0x1f8b, 0xNazgul, 0xRoxas, 0xSmartContract, 0xbepresent, Amithuddar, Awesome, B2, Bnke0x0, Dravee, KoKo, Mathieu, Picodes, RaymondFam, RedOneN, ReyAdmirado, RockingMiles, Ruhum, SadBase, SooYa, Waze, __141345__, adriro, ajtra, ballx, carlitox477, ch0bu, cylzxje, djxploit, durianSausage, emrekocak, erictee, gogo, halden, horsefacts, imare, indijanc, karanctf, leosathya, lukris02, neko_nyaa, oyc_109, peiw, sakman, shark, skyle, tnevler
11.5153 USDC - $11.52
When fetching data from a storage location, assigning the data to a memory variable causes all fields of the struct/array to be read from storage, which incurs a Gcoldsload (2100 gas) for each field of the struct/array. If the fields are read from the new memory variable, they incur an additional MLOAD rather than a cheap stack read. Instead of declearing the variable with the memory keyword, declaring the variable with the storage keyword and caching any fields that need to be re-read in stack variables, will be much cheaper, only incuring the Gcoldsload for the fields actually read. The only time it makes sense to read the whole struct/array into a memory variable, is if the full struct/array is being returned by the function, is being passed to a function that requires memory, or if the array/struct is being read from another memory array/struct
use storage instead memory
x -= y costs more gas than x = x – y for state variables.
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-paladin/blob/d6d0c0e57ad80f15e9691086c9c7270d4ccfe0e6/contracts/WardenPledge.sol#L268 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-paladin/blob/d6d0c0e57ad80f15e9691086c9c7270d4ccfe0e6/contracts/WardenPledge.sol#L340 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-paladin/blob/d6d0c0e57ad80f15e9691086c9c7270d4ccfe0e6/contracts/WardenPledge.sol#L401
split x -= y (x += y) to x = x – y (x = x + y).
#0 - c4-judge
2022-11-12T00:52:54Z
kirk-baird marked the issue as grade-b