Back to medikko's contests

Nouns DAO contest - medikko's results

A DAO-driven NFT project on Ethereum.

General Information

Platform: Code4rena

Start Date: 22/08/2022

Pot Size: $50,000 USDC

Total HM: 4

Participants: 160

Period: 5 days

Judge: gzeon

Total Solo HM: 2

Id: 155

League: ETH

Nouns DAO

Findings Distribution

Researcher Performance

Rank: 143/160

Findings: 1

Award: $16.66

🌟 Selected for report: 0

🚀 Solo Findings: 0

External Links

Code4rena Contest PageGithub Contest RepositoryGithub Findings RepositoryNouns DAO

Findings Information

🌟 Selected for report: IllIllI

Also found by: 0x040, 0x1f8b, 0xDjango, 0xNazgul, 0xNineDec, 0xSmartContract, 0xbepresent, 0xc0ffEE, 0xkatana, 2997ms, ACai, Amithuddar, Aymen0909, Ben, BipinSah, Bjorn_bug, Bnke0x0, CertoraInc, Ch_301, Chom, CodingNameKiki, Deivitto, DevABDee, DimitarDimitrov, Diraco, Dravee, ElKu, EthLedger, Fitraldys, Funen, GalloDaSballo, GimelSec, Guardian, IgnacioB, JC, JohnSmith, Junnon, KIntern_NA, Lambda, LeoS, Noah3o6, Olivierdem, Polandia94, R2, Randyyy, RaymondFam, Respx, ReyAdmirado, Rohan16, RoiEvenHaim, Rolezn, Ruhum, SaharAP, Saintcode_, SerMyVillage, Shishigami, Sm4rty, SooYa, TomJ, Tomio, Tomo, Waze, Yiko, _Adam, __141345__, a12jmx, ajtra, ak1, bobirichman, brgltd, bulej93, c3phas, cRat1st0s, carlitox477, catchup, ch0bu, d3e4, delfin454000, djxploit, durianSausage, erictee, exolorkistis, fatherOfBlocks, francoHacker, gogo, hyh, ignacio, jag, joestakey, karanctf, ladboy233, lucacez, lukris02, m_Rassska, martin, medikko, mics, mrpathfindr, natzuu, newfork01, oyc_109, pauliax, peritoflores, pfapostol, prasantgupta52, rbserver, ret2basic, rfa, robee, rokinot, rotcivegaf, rvierdiiev, sach1r0, saian, samruna, seyni, shark, shr1ftyy, sikorico, simon135, sryysryy, tay054, tnevler, wagmi, zishansami

Awards

16.6568 USDC - $16.66

Labels

bug
G (Gas Optimization)

External Links

Link to GitHub issue

Use defualt value rather than overwriite variable with their default value.

Overriting varibles with defualt values with their default value will waste only gas and not necessary.

There are 28 instances of this issue:

File: ./contracts/NounsArt.sol

131:     for (uint256 i = 0; i < _backgrounds.length; i++) {

431:     uint256 pageFirstImageIndex = 0;

432:     for (uint256 i = 0; i < len; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/NounsArt.sol#L131

File: ./contracts/NounsDescriptor.sol

110:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < newColors.length; i++) {

120:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _backgrounds.length; i++) {

130:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _bodies.length; i++) {

140:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _accessories.length; i++) {

150:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _heads.length; i++) {

160:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _glasses.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/NounsDescriptor.sol#L110

File: ./contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV1.sol

281:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

319:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

346:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

371:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV1.sol#L281

File: ./contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV2.sol

292:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

330:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

357:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

382:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

948:    uint256 lower = 0;

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV2.sol#L292

File: ./contracts/SVGRenderer.sol

100:    for (uint8 p = 0; p < params.parts.length; p++) {

111:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < image.draws.length; i++) {

168:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < cursor; i += 4) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/SVGRenderer.sol#L100

File: ./contracts/base/ERC721Checkpointable.sol

181: uint32 lower = 0;

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/base/ERC721Checkpointable.sol#L181

File: ./contracts/libs/Inflate.sol

150:    uint256 code = 0;

152:    uint256 first = 0;

156:    uint256 index = 0;

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/libs/Inflate.sol#L150

File: ./contracts/libs/MultiPartRLEToSVG.sol

81:     for (uint8 p = 0; p < params.parts.length; p++) {

90:     for (uint256 i = 0; i < image.rects.length; i++) {

127     for (uint256 i = 0; i < cursor; i += 4) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/libs/MultiPartRLEToSVG.sol#L81

Use unchecked{++i}/unchecked{i++} rather than this ++i/i++ in for-loops

Using a unchecked{++i}/unchecked{i++} is recommended in for loops if underflow and overflow is not possible. This will save some gas because the compiler woudn't make a safety check. This safety checks is came from version 0.8.0 and that applies also to above versions.

There are 14 instances of this issue:

File: ./contracts/NounsArt.sol

131:     for (uint256 i = 0; i < _backgrounds.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/NounsArt.sol#L131

File: ./contracts/NounsDescriptor.sol

110:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < newColors.length; i++) {

120:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _backgrounds.length; i++) {

130:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _bodies.length; i++) {

150:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _heads.length; i++) {

160:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _glasses.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/NounsDescriptor.sol#L110

File: ./contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV1.sol

281:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

319:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

346:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

371:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV1.sol#L281

File: ./contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV2.sol

292:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

330:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

357:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

382:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV2.sol#L292

++i/--i are more cheap operations than i++/i--

Using a ++i/--i operations can save about 6 gas for loop/instance because compiler will make less operations

There are 14 instances of this issue:

File: ./contracts/NounsArt.sol

131:     for (uint256 i = 0; i < _backgrounds.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/NounsArt.sol#L131

File: ./contracts/NounsDescriptor.sol

110:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < newColors.length; i++) {

120:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _backgrounds.length; i++) {

130:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _bodies.length; i++) {

150:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _heads.length; i++) {

160:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _glasses.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/NounsDescriptor.sol#L110

File: ./contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV1.sol

281:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

319:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

346:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

371:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV1.sol#L281

File: ./contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV2.sol

292:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

330:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

357:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

382:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV2.sol#L292

In for loop use outside variable for array length

For loop written like thisfor (uint256 i; i < array.length; ++i) { will cost more gas than for (uint256 i; i < _lengthOfArray; ++i) { because for every iteration we use mload and memory_offset that will cost about 6 gas

There are 14 instances of this issue:

File: ./contracts/NounsArt.sol

131:     for (uint256 i = 0; i < _backgrounds.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/NounsArt.sol#L131

File: ./contracts/NounsDescriptor.sol

110:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < newColors.length; i++) {

120:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _backgrounds.length; i++) {

130:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _bodies.length; i++) {

150:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _heads.length; i++) {

160:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < _glasses.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/NounsDescriptor.sol#L110

File: ./contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV1.sol

281:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

319:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

346:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

371:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV1.sol#L281

File: ./contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV2.sol

292:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

330:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

357:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

382:    for (uint256 i = 0; i < proposal.targets.length; i++) {

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-nounsdao/blob/45411325ec14c6d747b999a40367d3c5109b5a89/contracts/governance/NounsDAOLogicV2.sol#L292

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