Prepared by:
HALBORN
Last Updated 04/11/2025
Date of Engagement: March 17th, 2025 - March 20th, 2025
100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed
All findings
9
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
0
Low
1
Informational
8
CrunchDAO engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment on coordinator program beginning on March 14th, 2025 and ending on March 21th, 2025. The security assessment was scoped to the smart contracts provided in the GitHub repository coordinator, commit hashes, and further details can be found in the Scope section of this report.
The CrunchDAO team is releasing the coordinator program, a program to align incentives between customers and coordinators of the Crunch Network protocol.
Halborn was provided 6 days for the engagement and assigned one full-time security engineer to review the security of the Solana Programs in scope. The engineer is a blockchain and smart contract security expert with advanced smart contract hacking skills, and deep knowledge of multiple blockchain protocols.
The purpose of the assessment is to:
Identify potential security issues within the codebase.
Validate that only approved Coordinators has access to the functionalities of the platform
Check that the funds are safely stored in the corresponding rewards vaults
Verify that the funds assigned for the burn and foundation wallet are properly transferred
Look for any other significant bug or improvement to be implemented in the Coordinator code.
In summary, Halborn identified some improvements to reduce the likelihood and impact of risks, which were mostly addressed by the CrunchDAO team. The main one was the following:
Implement a functionality to allow crunchers to claim rewards without permission of the Coordinator of the crunch.
Halborn performed a combination of manual review and security testing based on scripts to balance efficiency, timeliness, practicality, and accuracy in regard to the scope of this assessment. While manual testing is recommended to uncover flaws in logic, process, and implementation; automated testing techniques help enhance coverage of the code and can quickly identify items that do not follow the security best practices. The following phases and associated tools were used during the assessment:
Research into architecture and purpose.
Differences analysis using GitLens to have a proper view of the differences between the mentioned commits
Graphing out functionality and programs logic/connectivity/functions along with state change
| 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
1
Informational
8
| Security analysis | Risk level | Remediation Date |
|---|---|---|
| Crunchers Cannot Directly Claim Their Rewards | Low | Solved - 03/31/2025 |
| No Mechanism Exists to Revoke an Approved Coordinator | Informational | Solved - 03/20/2025 |
| Lack of 2-Step Ownership Transfer | Informational | Solved - 03/26/2025 |
| Lack of validation of Burn and Foundation Margin Percentage values | Informational | Solved - 03/25/2025 |
| USDC Mint Should Not Be Mutable | Informational | Solved - 03/19/2025 |
| Crunch account not closed after ending the Crunch | Informational | Acknowledged - 04/10/2025 |
| Unused account in payout_checkpoint_transfer entry point | Informational | Solved - 03/26/2025 |
| The crunch account is not derived from the Coordinator Account Key | Informational | Solved - 03/21/2025 |
| PDA Accounts Are Not Derived Using Explicit Seeds in Context Accounts | Informational | Solved - 03/23/2025 |
//Low
//Informational
//Informational
//Informational
//Informational
//Informational
//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
Coordinator Program Assessment
* Use Google Chrome for best results
** Check "Background Graphics" in the print settings if needed
