Internal Exchange Re-Assessment Audit | Dappos

Summary

100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed

About this report

Assessment Type

Assurance Assessment

Date of Engagement

November 12th, 2024 - November 28th, 2024

Source Code

IntentExchange

Assessed Commit ID

35b86d4

Severity Breakdown

15Acknowledged
7Risk Accepted
3Solved
25All Findings

Critical0
High1
- 1Solved
Medium3
- 3Risk A.
Low6
- 4Risk A.
- 2Solved
Informational15
- 15Ack.

Introduction#

dappOS engaged our security analysis team to conduct a comprehensive security assessment of their smart contract ecosystem. The primary aim was to meticulously assess the security architecture of the smart contracts to pinpoint vulnerabilities, evaluate existing security protocols, and offer actionable insights to bolster security and operational efficacy of their smart contract framework. Our assessment was strictly confined to the smart contracts provided, ensuring a focused and exhaustive analysis of their security features.

Assessment Summary#

Our engagement with dappOS spanned a 2 week period, during which we dedicated one full-time security engineer equipped with extensive experience in blockchain security, advanced penetration testing capabilities, and profound knowledge of various blockchain protocols. The objectives of this assessment were to:

- Verify the correct functionality of smart contract operations.

- Identify potential security vulnerabilities within the smart contracts.

- Provide recommendations to enhance the security and efficiency of the smart contracts.

Test Approach and Methodology#

Our testing strategy employed a blend of manual and automated techniques to ensure a thorough evaluation. While manual testing was pivotal for uncovering logical and implementation flaws, automated testing offered broad code coverage and rapid identification of common vulnerabilities. The testing process included:

- A detailed examination of the smart contracts' architecture and intended functionality.

- Comprehensive manual code reviews and walkthroughs.

- Functional and connectivity analysis utilizing tools like Solgraph.

- Customized script-based manual testing and testnet deployment using Foundry.

This executive summary encapsulates the pivotal findings and recommendations from our security assessment of dappOS smart contract ecosystem. By addressing the identified issues and implementing the recommended fixes, dappOS can significantly boost the security, reliability, and trustworthiness of its smart contract platform.

Risk Methodology#

Every vulnerability and issue observed by Halborn is ranked based on two sets of Metrics and a Severity Coefficient. This system is inspired by the industry standard Common Vulnerability Scoring System.

The two Metric sets are: Exploitability and Impact. Exploitability captures the ease and technical means by which vulnerabilities can be exploited and Impact describes the consequences of a successful exploit.

The Severity Coefficients is designed to further refine the accuracy of the ranking with two factors: Reversibility and Scope. These capture the impact of the vulnerability on the environment as well as the number of users and smart contracts affected.

The final score is a value between 0-10 rounded up to 1 decimal place and 10 corresponding to the highest security risk. This provides an objective and accurate rating of the severity of security vulnerabilities in smart contracts.

The system is designed to assist in identifying and prioritizing vulnerabilities based on their level of risk to address the most critical issues in a timely manner.

4.1 EXPLOITABILITY

Attack Origin (AO):

Captures whether the attack requires compromising a specific account.

Attack Cost (AC):

Captures the cost of exploiting the vulnerability incurred by the attacker relative to sending a single transaction on the relevant blockchain. Includes but is not limited to financial and computational cost.

Attack Complexity (AX):

Describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Includes but is not limited to macro situation, available third-party liquidity and regulatory challenges.

Metrics:

EXPLOITABILITY METRIC ( $m_e$ )	METRIC VALUE	NUMERICAL VALUE
Attack Origin (AO)	Arbitrary (AO:A)	1
Attack Origin (AO)	Specific (AO:S)	0.2
Attack Cost (AC)	Low (AC:L)	1
	Medium (AC:M)	0.67
	High (AC:H)	0.33
Attack Complexity (AX)	Low (AX:L)	1
	Medium (AX:M)	0.67
	High (AX:H)	0.33

Exploitability

E

is calculated using the following formula:

$E = \prod m_e$

4.2 IMPACT

Confidentiality (C):

Measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by the contract due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting access to authorized users only.

Integrity (I):

Measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of data stored and/or processed on-chain. Integrity impact directly affecting Deposit or Yield records is excluded.

Availability (A):

Measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. This metric refers to smart contract features and functionality, not state. Availability impact directly affecting Deposit or Yield is excluded.

Deposit (D):

Measures the impact to the deposits made to the contract by either users or owners.

Yield (Y):

Measures the impact to the yield generated by the contract for either users or owners.

Metrics:

IMPACT METRIC ( $m_I$ )	METRIC VALUE	NUMERICAL VALUE
Confidentiality (C)	None (C:N)	0
	Low (C:L)	0.25
	Medium (C:M)	0.5
	High (C:H)	0.75
	Critical (C:C)	1
Integrity (I)	None (I:N)	0
	Low (I:L)	0.25
	Medium (I:M)	0.5
	High (I:H)	0.75
	Critical (I:C)	1
Availability (A)	None (A:N)	0
	Low (A:L)	0.25
	Medium (A:M)	0.5
	High (A:H)	0.75
	Critical (A:C)	1
Deposit (D)	None (D:N)	0
	Low (D:L)	0.25
	Medium (D:M)	0.5
	High (D:H)	0.75
	Critical (D:C)	1
Yield (Y)	None (Y:N)	0
	Low (Y:L)	0.25
	Medium (Y:M)	0.5
	High (Y:H)	0.75
	Critical (Y:C)	1

Impact

I

is calculated using the following formula:

$I = max(m_I) + \frac{\sum{m_I} - max(m_I)}{4}$

4.3 SEVERITY COEFFICIENT

Reversibility (R):

Describes the share of the exploited vulnerability effects that can be reversed. For upgradeable contracts, assume the contract private key is available.

Scope (S):

Captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable contract impacts resources in other contracts.

Metrics:

SEVERITY COEFFICIENT ( $C$ )	COEFFICIENT VALUE	NUMERICAL VALUE
Reversibility ( $r$ )	None (R:N)	1
	Partial (R:P)	0.5
	Full (R:F)	0.25
Scope ( $s$ )	Changed (S:C)	1.25
Scope ( $s$ )	Unchanged (S:U)	1

Severity Coefficient

C

is obtained by the following product:

$C = rs$

The Vulnerability Severity Score

S

is obtained by:

$S = min(10, EIC * 10)$

The score is rounded up to 1 decimal places.

Critical	High	Medium	Low	Informational
9 - 10	7 - 8.9	4.5 - 6.9	2 - 4.4	0 - 1.9

Scope#

(a) Repository:IntentExchange

(b) Assessed Commit ID:35b86d4fd12077075d9320fcb82e439a23ca75eb

13 files

contracts

12 files

libraries

4 files

Common.sol

solidity

SignLibrary.sol

solidity

TransferHelper.sol

solidity

VWCode.sol

solidity

Create2Factory.sol

solidity

OrderBook.sol

solidity

OrderBookConfig.sol

solidity

OrderBookDB.sol

solidity

OrderBookTransferHelper.sol

solidity

OrderBookVault.sol

solidity

Out-of-Scope: New features/implementations after the remediation commit IDs.

Assessment Summary & Findings Overview#

#	Title	Severity	Score	Status
HAL-01	Incorrect Fee Determination	High	7.0	Solved12/10/2024
HAL-02	Reserved Fee Tier Misuse	Medium	6.3	Risk Accepted12/10/2024
HAL-03	Decimals Mismatch	Medium	6.3	Risk Accepted12/10/2024
HAL-04	Invalid Fee Values Can Cause Underflow and DoS	Medium	5.9	Risk Accepted12/10/2024
HAL-05	Lack of Validation for Duplicate Entries and Interface Compliance	Low	3.1	Risk Accepted12/10/2024
HAL-06	Missing Validation and Standardization	Low	3.1	Solved12/10/2024
HAL-07	Improper Initialization Logic	Low	3.1	Solved12/10/2024
HAL-08	Missing Initializer Disabling in Constructor	Low	3.1	Risk Accepted12/10/2024
HAL-09	Unsafe ETH Transfers	Low	2.3	Risk Accepted12/10/2024
HAL-10	Resetting Approvals After Failed filling	Low	1.9	Risk Accepted12/10/2024
HAL-11	Misaligned Admin Functionality	Informational	1.9	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-12	Centralization Risk in Admin Withdrawal Functions	Informational	1.9	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-13	Lack of Validation for IntentToken	Informational	1.6	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-14	Hardcoded ERC20 Names	Informational	1.6	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-15	Debugging Calls Present in Production Code	Informational	1.6	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-16	Type Mismatch in Decoding Functions	Informational	1.3	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-17	Inconsistent Sorting and Subset Validation	Informational	1.3	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-18	Inefficient Execution matchOrders Function	Informational	1.3	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-19	Inefficient External Call	Informational	1.3	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-20	Duplicated Role Checks in Batch Functions	Informational	1.3	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-21	Inefficient Initialization and Missing Validation in Setters	Informational	0.6	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-22	Token Intent State Change Impact	Informational	0.6	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-23	Insecure setter Functions	Informational	0.6	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-24	Early Validation for Node Whitelist	Informational	0.6	Acknowledged12/10/2024
HAL-25	Filter Zero Balances	Informational	0.6	Acknowledged12/10/2024

Disclaimer#

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.