Smart Contract
Security Audit Report

AI-Powered Code Review and Vulnerability Analysis

Contract
GCU
Date
23/04/2026
Blockchain
Ethereum
Audit ID
QCAIA-1776937514962-8FECE1E9
Report Name Smart Contract Security Audit Report for GCU
Audit ID QCAIA-1776937514962-8FECE1E9
Audited By QCAIA - QoreChain AI Security Engine
Blockchain Ethereum
Language solidity
Framework EVM/Solidity
Code Hash (SHA-256) 1caee968f677637d997698b1db0a5fa66a34eef09c9d5d050a37f0f6b2e4e7bd
Audit Date 23/04/2026
Processing Time 3.17 seconds
85
Security
Score

Overall Risk Assessment

MEDIUM

The GCU token contract implements basic ERC20 functionality with minting and burning capabilities controlled by an owner. It includes proper access controls, reentrancy guards, and custom errors. However, there are some inconsistencies in the burn function behavior and missing transfer restrictions that could pose risks. The contract follows modern Solidity practices and uses OpenZeppelin libraries appropriately.

3
Total Findings
0
Critical + High
1
Medium
2
Low + Info

Findings by Severity

Severity Count
CRITICAL 0
HIGH 0
MEDIUM 1
LOW 1
INFO 1
ETH-001 Missing Access Control on Transfer Function
MEDIUM
Category
Access Control
Description
The _transfer function overrides the base ERC20 transfer logic but does not implement any restrictions on transfers. This could allow unauthorized transfers if the contract is intended to have transfer restrictions.
Location
GCU.sol:79
Impact
Potential unauthorized token transfers if transfer restrictions are expected but not implemented.
Recommendation
Implement proper access control or transfer restrictions as needed for the token's use case.
Severity MEDIUM
Status Open
Finding ID ETH-001
ETH-002 Inconsistent Burn Function Behavior
LOW
Category
Logic Flaws
Description
The burnFrom function allows burning tokens from another address using allowance, but the regular burn function only burns from the caller's own balance. This inconsistency may lead to unexpected behavior.
Location
GCU.sol:54-67
Impact
Inconsistent token burning behavior between functions which might confuse users or developers.
Recommendation
Consider making both functions behave consistently, either both allowing burning from any address or both restricting to caller's own balance.
Severity LOW
Status Open
Finding ID ETH-002
ETH-003 Missing ERC20 Metadata Functions
INFO
Category
ERC Standards Compliance
Description
The contract does not implement standard ERC20 metadata functions like totalSupply(), name(), symbol(), decimals(). These are already inherited from ERC20 but should be explicitly considered for completeness.
Location
GCU.sol
Impact
No functional impact since these are inherited, but good practice to verify implementation.
Recommendation
Ensure all required ERC20 functions are properly implemented and tested.
Severity INFO
Status Open
Finding ID ETH-003

⚡ Gas Optimizations

📋 Best Practices

💡 General Recommendations

✅ Positive Aspects

QoreChain AI Audit Disclaimer

This security audit was performed by QCAIA (QoreChain AI Assistant), an AI-powered security engine using advanced machine learning models. While our AI auditor is trained on extensive security patterns and vulnerability databases, it should be used as part of a comprehensive security strategy.

This audit does not guarantee:

We recommend: