ethernaut VS openzeppelin-contracts

- https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/ethernaut - do ALL the security oriented exercises

View on GitHub

In the following code snippet, we have 4 contracts: Sender, SenderWithRequire, SenderWithEmit and Receiver. Here, Receiver will play the King contract role.

You could contribute to Ethernaut, such as updating to Solidity 0.8: https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/ethernaut

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0 pragma solidity ^0.8.20; import "https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/v5.0.0/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20.sol"; interface Sfs {     function register(address _recipient) external returns (uint256 tokenId); } contract ModeToken is ERC20 {     address feeReceiver = msg.sender;     constructor() ERC20("ModeTokenSFSTest", "SFST2") { //Example amount to mint our ERC20         _mint(msg.sender, 1000 10 * 18);   // This is the SFS contract address on testnet Sfs sfsContract = Sfs(0xBBd707815a7F7eb6897C7686274AFabd7B579Ff6); //Registers this contract and assigns the NFT //to the deployer of this contract sfsContract.register(msg.sender);     } }

Lets look the events of Open Zeppelin’s ERC20 token contract:

ERC-777 is difficult to implement properly, due to its susceptibility to different forms of attack(opens in a new tab). It is recommended to use ERC-20 instead. This page remains as a historical archive.