The IndexToken smart contract is a straightforward ERC20 implementation that inherits from OpenZeppelin’s standard library. It includes a public minting function, which, while containing a basic check against minting to the zero address, lacks any access control. This design flaw allows any external user to mint tokens arbitrarily, potentially leading to severe inflation and undermining the token’s economic integrity if deployed in a production environment.
Unrestricted Minting:
The mint function is marked as external without any access restrictions. There is no mechanism (such as the onlyOwner modifier or a specific minter role) to limit who can call this function. This permits any user to mint an arbitrary amount of tokens to any address.
Lack of Access Control:
Although the function checks that the recipient address is not the zero address, it does not verify whether the caller has the necessary permissions to mint tokens. This oversight means that unauthorized accounts can exploit the function, effectively bypassing any intended control over token supply.
Token Inflation:
Unauthorized users can mint unlimited tokens, leading to inflation. This compromises the token's value and could devalue holdings for legitimate investors.
Economic Disruption:
The ability to arbitrarily inflate the token supply undermines the trust in the token’s economic model and can lead to market manipulation, severely damaging the reputation and viability of the project.
Security Risks:
If exploited, this vulnerability can erode user confidence and may lead to significant financial losses, potentially attracting malicious actors aiming to profit from the resulting instability.
Manual Code Review:
Analyzed the smart contract code for adherence to common security practices in token contracts.
Reference to OpenZeppelin Documentation:
Reviewed the OpenZeppelin ERC20 implementation to compare standard practices regarding minting and access control.
Implement Access Control:
Introduce an access control mechanism using OpenZeppelin’s Ownable or AccessControl contracts. Restrict the mint function so that only authorized addresses (such as the contract owner or designated minters) can call it.
Audit Intent and Use-Case:
If the mint function is intended for a public use-case (e.g., for testing purposes), clearly document its intended use and consider imposing limits (e.g., minting caps) to prevent abuse.
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
This is your time to appeal against judgements on your submissions.
Appeals are being carefully reviewed by our judges.