The contract defines an onlyOwner modifier but does not use it. Instead, access control checks are implemented inline via repeated require(msg.sender == owner, ...) statements across multiple functions.
This may lead to code duplication, reduced readability, and potential for inconsistency in future modifications.
Likelihood:
The unused modifier and duplicated inline checks are present across every restricted function in the contract, making this a consistent pattern throughout the entire codebase rather than an isolated occurrence.
Any future modification to access control logic will require updating every inline require statement individually, increasing the likelihood of an inconsistency being introduced.
Impact:
Code duplication across multiple functions increases maintenance burden and the risk of inconsistency in future modifications.
Reduced readability makes it harder for auditors and developers to reason about the access control model of the contract.
Either use the onlyOwner modifier consistently across all restricted functions, or remove the unused modifier entirely.
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.
The contest is complete and the rewards are being distributed.