2025-02-datingdapp/agent-finding.md

# DatingDapp Smart Contract Audit Findings

## Overview
This audit was conducted on the DatingDapp smart contract system, which consists of three main contracts:
- SoulboundProfileNFT.sol
- LikeRegistry.sol
- MultiSig.sol

## High Severity Findings

### [H-01] Blocked Profile Can Bypass Restrictions by Reminting
**Contract**: SoulboundProfileNFT.sol => this is actually Medium

**Description**:  
The `blockProfile` function in SoulboundProfileNFT contract fails to permanently prevent blocked addresses from participating in the platform.

**Impact**:
- Blocked malicious users can immediately create new profiles
- Platform security measures can be circumvented
- Admin actions become ineffective

**Proof of Concept**:
1. Admin blocks user A using `blockProfile(address A)`
2. User A's profile is burned and mappings are cleared
3. User A can immediately call `mintProfile()` to create a new profile

**Recommendation**:
Implement a blacklist mapping to track blocked addresses:
```solidity
mapping(address => bool) public blockedAddresses;

function blockProfile(address blockAddress) external onlyOwner {
    blockedAddresses[blockAddress] = true;
    uint256 tokenId = profileToToken[blockAddress];
    require(tokenId != 0, "No profile found");

    _burn(tokenId);
    delete profileToToken[blockAddress];
    delete _profiles[tokenId];

    emit ProfileBurned(blockAddress, tokenId);
}

function mintProfile(string memory name, uint8 age, string memory profileImage) external {
    require(!blockedAddresses[msg.sender], "Address is blocked");
    // ... rest of the function
}
```

### [H-02] Incorrect Balance Management in Match Rewards
**Contract**: LikeRegistry.sol

**Description**:  
In the `matchRewards` function, user balances are set to zero before their values are used in calculations, resulting in zero rewards distribution.

**Impact**:
- Users lose all deposited funds when matched
- No rewards are distributed to matched pairs
- Funds remain locked in the contract

**Proof of Concept**:
```solidity
function matchRewards(address from, address to) internal returns (address) {
    userBalances[from] = 0; // Balance cleared before use
    userBalances[to] = 0;   // Balance cleared before use
    
    uint256 matchUserOne = userBalances[from]; // Will always be 0
    uint256 matchUserTwo = userBalances[to];   // Will always be 0
    // ... rest of the function
}
```

**Recommendation**:
Store balances in temporary variables before clearing:
```solidity
function matchRewards(address from, address to) internal returns (address) {
    uint256 matchUserOne = userBalances[from];
    uint256 matchUserTwo = userBalances[to];
    
    userBalances[from] = 0;
    userBalances[to] = 0;
    
    uint256 totalRewards = matchUserOne + matchUserTwo;
    // ... rest of the function
}
```

### [H-03] ETH Lock Risk in LikeRegistry
**Contract**: LikeRegistry.sol => invalid, by design / info

**Description**:  
The `receive()` function accepts ETH and updates user balances, but there's no mechanism for users to withdraw their funds directly.

**Impact**:
- User funds can be permanently locked in the contract
- No way to recover accidentally sent ETH
- Potential loss of user funds

**Recommendation**:
Add a withdrawal function for direct deposits:
```solidity
function withdrawBalance() external {
    uint256 amount = userBalances[msg.sender];
    require(amount > 0, "No balance to withdraw");
    
    userBalances[msg.sender] = 0;
    (bool success,) = payable(msg.sender).call{value: amount}("");
    require(success, "Transfer failed");
}
```

## Medium Severity Findings

### [M-01] Potential Fund Lock in MultiSig => invalid, info, by design
**Contract**: MultiSig.sol

**Description**:  
The MultiSig contract lacks recovery mechanisms if one owner becomes unresponsive or loses their keys.

**Impact**:
- Funds could be permanently locked if one owner is unavailable
- No way to replace or update owners
- No emergency withdrawal mechanism

**Recommendation**:
Implement a timelock mechanism for emergency withdrawals or owner replacement functionality.

### [M-02] Missing Profile Update Functionality => invalid
**Contract**: SoulboundProfileNFT.sol

**Description**:  
Users cannot update their profile information without burning and reminting their NFT.

**Impact**:
- Poor user experience
- Unnecessary gas costs for profile updates
- Historical data loss when profiles are updated

**Recommendation**:
Add a profile update function with proper access controls.

## Low Severity Findings

### [L-01] Insufficient Input Validation => invalid
**Contract**: SoulboundProfileNFT.sol

**Description**:  
- No validation for name length
- No validation for profile image URL format
- No age restrictions or validation

**Recommendation**:
Add proper input validation:
```solidity
function mintProfile(string memory name, uint8 age, string memory profileImage) external {
    require(bytes(name).length > 0 && bytes(name).length <= 50, "Invalid name length");
    require(age >= 18 && age <= 100, "Invalid age");
    require(bytes(profileImage).length > 0, "Invalid profile image");
    // ... rest of the function
}
```

### [L-02] Gas Optimization Issues => not needed
**Contracts**: All

**Description**:  
- Storage of full profile data on-chain is expensive
- Redundant storage of data that could be emitted as events
- Inefficient string handling in profile data

**Recommendation**:
- Consider using events for historical data
- Use off-chain storage for profile images
- Optimize string handling and storage patterns

### [L-03] Missing Events for Critical Operations => not needed
**Contracts**: All

**Description**:  
Some state-changing operations lack event emissions, making it difficult to track changes off-chain.

**Recommendation**:
Add events for all significant state changes.

## Informational Findings

### [I-01] Documentation Gaps => not needed
**Contracts**: All

**Description**:  
- Limited NatSpec documentation
- Missing function parameter documentation
- Unclear error messages

**Recommendation**:
Improve documentation coverage and clarity.

### [I-02] Version Control => not needed
**Contracts**: All

**Description**:  
Contracts use `^0.8.19` which allows for minor version updates.

**Recommendation**:
Pin to exact version: `pragma solidity 0.8.19;`