Prepared by:
HALBORN
Last Updated 09/16/2025
Date of Engagement: August 28th, 2025 - September 4th, 2025
100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed
All findings
7
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
3
Low
1
Informational
3
CoreDAO
engaged Halborn
to conduct a security assessment of the BTCFi Lending Vault contracts developed by the b14g team
from August 28th to September 4th, 2025. The scope of this assessment was limited to the smart contracts provided to the Halborn team. Commit hashes and additional details are documented in the Scope section of this report.
The Halborn
team dedicated a total of five days to this engagement, deploying one full-time security engineer to evaluate the smart contracts’ security posture.
The assigned security engineer is an expert in blockchain and smart contract security, with advanced skills in penetration testing, smart contract exploitation, and a comprehensive understanding of multiple blockchain protocols.
The objectives of this assessment were to:
Verify that the smart contract functions operate as intended.
Identify potential security vulnerabilities within the smart contracts.
In summary, Halborn
identified several areas for improvement to reduce both the likelihood and impact of potential risks, which were partially addressed by the b14g team
. The primary suggestions included:
Implement comprehensive oracle data validation with staleness and confidence checks before using prices in calculations.
Establish proper historical reward state tracking to prevent exploitation of uninitialized mapping slots.
Add health factor validation after pool withdrawals to prevent liquidation risk.
Implement proper error handling for external contract calls with try-catch blocks.
Add event emissions for all administrative parameter changes to enhance transparency.
Make critical addresses configurable instead of hardcoded to support network flexibility.
Halborn employed a combination of manual, semi-automated, and automated security testing methods to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, and accuracy within the scope of this assessment. Manual testing was vital for uncovering issues related to logic, processes, and implementation details, while automated techniques enhanced code coverage and helped identify deviations from security best practices. The assessment involved the following phases and tools:
Research into the architecture and purpose of the smart contracts.
Manual review and walkthrough of the smart contract code.
Manual evaluation of critical Solidity variables and functions to identify potential vulnerability classes.
Manual testing using custom scripts.
Static security analysis of the scoped contracts and imported functions utilizing Slither
.
Local deployment and testing with Foundry
.
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 (I:N) Low (I:L) Medium (I:M) High (I:H) Critical (I: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
3
Low
1
Informational
3
Security analysis | Risk level | Remediation Date |
---|---|---|
Stale Oracle Data Enables Slippage Protection Bypass | Medium | Solved - 09/05/2025 |
Historical Data Loss Enables Reward Theft | Medium | Solved - 09/05/2025 |
Pool Withdrawal Without Health Factor Validation | Medium | Solved - 09/05/2025 |
Unchecked External Call Return Values | Low | Risk Accepted - 09/10/2025 |
Operator Role Centralization Risk | Informational | Solved - 09/10/2025 |
Silent Changes Reduce Transparency | Informational | Acknowledged - 09/10/2025 |
Hardcoded Network Addresses Reduce Flexibility | Informational | Acknowledged - 09/10/2025 |
//
The WBTCSwap::swap()
function calculates slippage protection using Pyth oracle prices without proper validation.
uint256 amountOutMinimum = (msg.value * corePrice * (10000 - slippage)) / (btcPrice * 10000 * 1e10);
The function fetches EMA prices but doesn't verify price staleness or confidence intervals.
Add comprehensive oracle data validation before using prices for calculations:
require(block.timestamp - coreData.publishTime <= MAX_PRICE_AGE, "Stale price");
require(coreData.conf <= MAX_CONFIDENCE_INTERVAL, "Price confidence too low");
require(corePrice > 0 && btcPrice > 0, "Invalid oracle price");
SOLVED: The suggested mitigation was implemented.
//
In LendingVaultV2::captureReward()
, when operators skip multiple rounds and current round has zero rewards, the fallback logic copies from uninitialized mapping slots instead of finding the last valid reward state.
if (accPerShareLog[lastRoundClaim] == 0) {
accPerShareLog[lastRoundClaim] = accPerShareLog[lastRoundClaim - 1];
}
Attack Scenario:
Operator skips rounds 101-104, leaving accPerShareLog[104] = 0
Attacker observes this state and stakes a large amount when accPerShareLog[lastRoundClaim] = 0
Next round (105) generates rewards, setting accPerShareLog[105] = X
Attacker receives reward calculation of (X - 0) * large_stake
, effectively claiming rewards from round 0 despite only staking one round
Legitimate long-term stakers receive diluted rewards due to the attacker's disproportionate share
This enables attackers to manipulate reward calculations by staking during zero-state periods.
Implement state tracking to maintain historical continuity across consecutive zero-reward rounds:
uint256 public lastValidAccPerShare;
function captureReward(address swapHelper) external onlyOperator whenNotPaused {
// ... existing reward claiming logic ...
if (totalScaledBalance > 0) {
if (reward > 0) {
// Case 1: Normal rewards - calculate new accumulation
uint256 rewardPerShare = (postScaledBalance - preScaledBalance) * 1 ether / totalScaledBalance;
lastValidAccPerShare += rewardPerShare;
accPerShareLog[lastRoundClaim] = lastValidAccPerShare;
} else {
// Case 2: Zero rewards - inherit last valid state
accPerShareLog[lastRoundClaim] = lastValidAccPerShare;
}
}
}
SOLVED: The suggested mitigation was implemented.
//
LendingVaultV2::claimRevenue()
performs pool withdrawals to cover revenue claims without validating the vault's health factor afterwards.
pool.withdraw(address(stakeToken), withdrawAmount, address(this));
This can lead to liquidation risk as withdrawing collateral reduces the vault's health factor below safe thresholds.
Add health factor validation after pool withdrawal:
pool.withdraw(address(stakeToken), withdrawAmount, address(this));
(,,,,, uint256 currentHealthFactor) = pool.getUserAccountData(address(this));
require(currentHealthFactor >= MINIMUM_HEALTH_FACTOR, "Health factor too low");
SOLVED: The suggested mitigation was implemented.
//
LendingVaultV2::withdraw()
and MergeMarketplaceStrategyV2::reInvest()
make external calls that don't check return values or rely on implicit revert behavior, which may not work consistently across all implementations.
File: MergeMarketplaceStrategyV2
IMarketplace(marketplace).withdrawCoreProxy(withdrawData);
IMarketplace(marketplace).stakeCoreProxy{value: stakeValue}(stakeData);
File: LendingVaultV2
pool.withdraw(address(stakeToken), amount, address(this));
Wrap external calls in try-catch blocks or verify that the called contracts properly revert on failure.
RISK ACCEPTED: The b14g team accepted the risk related to this finding.
//
The LendingVaultV2
contract grants excessive privileges to a single operator address without multi-signature requirements or timelock mechanisms. The operator can perform critical operations like borrowing funds (lendingInvest
), investing in strategies (coreInvest
), and claiming rewards (captureReward
) without additional oversight, creating centralization risks.
Risk Scenarios:
Compromised Operator: Single point of failure if operator key is compromised
Malicious Operator: Could drain vault through excessive borrowing or malicious strategy investments
Operational Risk: No backup mechanism if operator becomes unavailable
Implement multi-signature requirements or timelock mechanisms for critical operator functions.
SOLVED: The b14g team agreed to use multisig for operator role.
//
Admin functions in WBTCSwap::setSlippage()
and WBTCSwap::setDeadline()
don't emit events for parameter changes, reducing transparency and making it difficult to track configuration updates.
Add event emissions to all admin parameter change functions for transparency.
ACKNOWLEDGED: This finding was acknowledged.
//
WBTCSwap
, LendingVaultV2
, and MergeMarketplaceStrategyV2
use hardcoded addresses for tokens, routers, and oracles, making them inflexible for network upgrades, migrations, or multi-chain deployments.
address public constant WBTC = 0x5832f53d147b3d6Cd4578B9CBD62425C7ea9d0Bd;
address public constant WCORE = 0x191E94fa59739e188dcE837F7f6978d84727AD01;
Make critical addresses configurable through admin functions with appropriate access controls and validation checks:
function setTokenAddresses(address _wbtc, address _wcore) external onlyOwner {
require(_wbtc != address(0) && _wcore != address(0), "Invalid addresses");
WBTC = _wbtc;
WCORE = _wcore;
emit AddressesUpdated(_wbtc, _wcore);
}
ACKNOWLEDGED: This finding was acknowledged.
Halborn utilized automated testing techniques to improve coverage of specific areas within the smart contracts under review. One of the primary tools employed was Slither
, a static analysis framework for Solidity. After successfully verifying and compiling the smart contracts in the repository into their ABI and binary formats, Slither
was executed against the contracts. This tool performs static verification of mathematical relationships between Solidity variables to detect invalid or inconsistent usage of the contracts' APIs throughout the entire codebase.
The security team conducted a comprehensive review of the findings generated by the Slither
static analysis tool. No significant issues were identified, as the reported findings were determined to be false positives.
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
BTCFi Lending Vault
* Use Google Chrome for best results
** Check "Background Graphics" in the print settings if needed