Prepared by:
HALBORN
Last Updated 07/21/2025
Date of Engagement: June 23rd, 2025 - July 7th, 2025
100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed
All findings
7
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
0
Low
4
Informational
3
Casper engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment of the CEP18 contract, beginning June 23rd, 2024 and ending July 7th, 2024.
The CEP18 contract is the standard token contract within the Casper ecosystem, and the engagement aimed to verify that the Casper network Conder upgrade did not create security vulnerabilities in the updated contract.
The team at Halborn assigned a full-time security engineer to verify the security of the smart contract. The security engineer is a blockchain and smart-contract security expert with advanced penetration testing, smart-contract hacking, and deep knowledge of multiple blockchain protocols.
The purpose of this assessment is to:
Ensure that smart contract functions operate as intended.
Identify potential security issues with the smart contracts.
In summary, Halborn identified some improvements to reduce the likelihood and impact of risks, which were mostly addressed by the Casper team. The main ones were the following:
Support the AddressableEntities feature.
Synchronize the SDK with the added entry points.
Fix the SDK entry point parameters.
Fix the SDK events support.
Halborn performed a combination of the manual view of the code and automated security testing to balance efficiency, timeliness, practicality, and accuracy regarding the scope of the smart contract assessment. While manual testing is recommended to uncover flaws in logic, process, and implementation, automated testing techniques help enhance the coverage of smart contracts. They can quickly identify items that do not follow security best practices. The following phases and associated tools were used throughout the term of the assessment:
Research into architecture, purpose, and use of the platform.
Manual code read and walk through.
Manual Assessment of use and safety for the critical Rust variables and functions in scope to identify any arithmetic related vulnerability classes.
Cross contract call controls.
Architecture related logical controls.
Test complex scenarios with unit tests.
| EXPLOITABILITY METRIC () | METRIC VALUE | NUMERICAL VALUE |
|---|---|---|
| Attack Origin (AO) | Arbitrary (AO:A) Specific (AO:S) | 1 0.2 |
| Attack Cost (AC) | Low (AC:L) Medium (AC:M) High (AC:H) | 1 0.67 0.33 |
| Attack Complexity (AX) | Low (AX:L) Medium (AX:M) High (AX:H) | 1 0.67 0.33 |
| IMPACT METRIC () | METRIC VALUE | NUMERICAL VALUE |
|---|---|---|
| Confidentiality (C) | None (C:N) Low (C:L) Medium (C:M) High (C:H) Critical (C:C) | 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 |
| Integrity (I) | None (I:N) Low (I:L) Medium (I:M) High (I:H) Critical (I:C) | 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 |
| Availability (A) | None (A:N) Low (A:L) Medium (A:M) High (A:H) Critical (A:C) | 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 |
| Deposit (D) | None (D:N) Low (D:L) Medium (D:M) High (D:H) Critical (D:C) | 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 |
| Yield (Y) | None (Y:N) Low (Y:L) Medium (Y:M) High (Y:H) Critical (Y:C) | 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 |
| SEVERITY COEFFICIENT () | COEFFICIENT VALUE | NUMERICAL VALUE |
|---|---|---|
| Reversibility () | None (R:N) Partial (R:P) Full (R:F) | 1 0.5 0.25 |
| Scope () | Changed (S:C) Unchanged (S:U) | 1.25 1 |
| Severity | Score Value Range |
|---|---|
| Critical | 9 - 10 |
| High | 7 - 8.9 |
| Medium | 4.5 - 6.9 |
| Low | 2 - 4.4 |
| Informational | 0 - 1.9 |
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
0
Low
4
Informational
3
| Security analysis | Risk level | Remediation Date |
|---|---|---|
| Addressable entities feature activation leads to total loss of funds | Low | Risk Accepted - 07/13/2025 |
| SDK is missing events | Low | Solved - 07/13/2025 |
| Missing ChangeEventsModeParams declaration in SDK | Low | Solved - 07/13/2025 |
| Deprecated BurnerList argument in ChangeSecurityArgs | Low | Solved - 07/13/2025 |
| Unreachable caller kinds in get_immediate_caller | Informational | Solved - 07/13/2025 |
| Redundant sender recipient check | Informational | Acknowledged - 07/13/2025 |
| Unused ENTRY_POINT_UPGRADE constant | Informational | Solved - 07/13/2025 |
//Low
//Low
//Low
//Low
//Informational
//Informational
//Informational
Halborn strongly recommends conducting a follow-up assessment of the project either within six months or immediately following any material changes to the codebase, whichever comes first. This approach is crucial for maintaining the project’s integrity and addressing potential vulnerabilities introduced by code modifications.
// Download the full report
CEP18
* Use Google Chrome for best results
** Check "Background Graphics" in the print settings if needed
