QA Report

[code423n4]

L-01 REQUIRE() SHOULD BE USED INSTEAD OF ASSERT()

There is 1 instance of this issue

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-zksync/blob/main/ethereum/contracts/zksync/facets/DiamondCut.sol

File: contracts/zksync/facets/DiamondCut.sol

16: assert(SECURITY_COUNCIL_APPROVALS_FOR_EMERGENCY_UPGRADE > 0);

---

L-02 NON-LIBRARY/INTERFACE FILES SHOULD USE FIXED COMPILER VERSIONS, NOT FLOATING ONES

In the contracts, floating pragmas should not be used. Contracts should be deployed with the same compiler version and flags that they have been tested with thoroughly. Locking the pragma helps to ensure that contracts do not accidentally get deployed using, for example, an outdated compiler version that might introduce bugs that affect the contract system negatively.

Proof of Concept

This issue exists on all In-scope contracts

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Lock the pragma version

---

N-01 EVENT IS MISSING INDEXED FIELDS

Each event should use three indexed fields if there are three or more fields

There are 7 instances of this issue

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-zksync/blob/main/ethereum/contracts/zksync/interfaces/IDiamondCut.sol

File: contracts/zksync/interfaces/IDiamondCut.sol

20:  event DiamondCutProposal(Diamond.FacetCut[] _facetCuts, address _initAddress);
22: event DiamondCutProposalCancelation(uint256 currentProposalId, bytes32 indexed proposedDiamondCutHash);
24: event DiamondCutProposalExecution(Diamond.DiamondCutData _diamondCut);
28: event Unfreeze(uint256 lastDiamondFreezeTimestamp);

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-zksync/blob/main/ethereum/contracts/zksync/interfaces/IExecutor.sol

File: contracts/zksync/interfaces/IExecutor.sol

85: event BlocksRevert(uint256 totalBlocksCommitted, uint256 totalBlocksVerified, uint256 totalBlocksExecuted);

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-zksync/blob/main/ethereum/contracts/bridge/interfaces/IL1Bridge.sol

File: contracts/bridge/interfaces/IL1Bridge.sol

11: event WithdrawalFinalized(address indexed to, address indexed l1Token, uint256 amount);
13: event ClaimedFailedDeposit(address indexed to, address indexed l1Token, uint256 amount);

---

N-02 USE A MORE RECENT VERSION OF SOLIDITY

Proof of Concept

This issue exists on all In-scope contracts

For instance:

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-zksync/blob/main/ethereum/contracts/common/L2ContractHelper.sol

File: contracts/common/L2ContractHelper.sol

3: pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

---

N-03 REQUIRE() STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE DESCRIPTIVE REASON STRINGS

There are 8 instances of this issue

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-zksync/blob/main/ethereum/contracts/bridge/L1EthBridge.sol

File: contracts/bridge/L1EthBridge.sol

221: require(_message.length == 56);
224: require(bytes4(functionSignature) == this.finalizeWithdrawal.selector);
238: require(callSuccess);

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-zksync/blob/main/zksync/contracts/bridge/L2StandardERC20.sol

File: contracts/bridge/L2StandardERC20.sol

96: require(msg.sender == l2Bridge);

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-zksync/blob/main/ethereum/contracts/zksync/facets/Executor.sol

File: contracts/zksync/facets/Executor.sol

43: require(expectedNumberOfLayer1Txs == _newBlock.numberOfLayer1Txs);
45: require(l2BlockTimestamp == _newBlock.timestamp);
297: require(_recurisiveAggregationInput.length == 4);

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-zksync/blob/main/zksync/contracts/bridge/L2ETHBridge.sol

File: contracts/bridge/L2ETHBridge.sol

50: require(_l1Token == CONVENTIONAL_ETH_ADDRESS);

---

[c4-judge]

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as grade-c

[GalloDaSballo]

Low imapct