Prepared by:
HALBORN
Last Updated 04/01/2025
Date of Engagement: March 10th, 2025 - March 24th, 2025
100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed
All findings
4
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
0
Low
2
Informational
2
Huma Finance engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment on permissionless program beginning on March 10th, 2025 and ending on March 24th, 2025. The security assessment was scoped to the smart contracts provided in the GitHub repository huma-solana-programs, commit hashes, and further details can be found in the Scope section of this report.
The Huma Finance team is releasing the permissionless program, which empowers liquidity providers (LPs) to participate in Huma liquidity pools in a fully compliant, permissionless manner. LPs benefit from attractive double-digit yields along with Huma Feathers as additional rewards.
Halborn was provided 10 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 the lenders have access to participate in the protocol by depositing their assets
Check that the platform allows lenders to request redemptions of their tokens in a permissionless fashion
Verify that the funds are correctly managed so they can only be accessible by the correct entities
In summary, Halborn identified some improvements to reduce the likelihood and impact of risks, which should be addressed by the Huma Finance team. The main ones were the following:
Implement a functionality to refresh the assets of the different pool modes.
Verify that the modes provided to the entry points are not duplicated.
Most of the findings were addressed, and the corresponding fixes have been merged into the branches listed below. The final commits reflect the changes that solved the issues:
4217cfb901a60e7a8a4166673b6884a0c7ada423 on develop branch
7eb9e6c97b74edeffdd2fd7cf53f750067fb19bc on main branch
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
Following a requirement from the Huma Finance team to prevent lenders from canceling redemption requests, a new commit (216f890) was added to the scope of this audit. The corresponding functionality was reviewed and confirmed to operate as intended.
Additionally, Huma Finance introduced a security feature aimed at improving the process for closing lender accounts. This enhancement was reviewed and confirmed to implement the intended security upgrade correctly. The corresponding functionality is included in Pull Request #208 of the huma-solana-programs repository.
| 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
2
Informational
2
| Security analysis | Risk level | Remediation Date |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of a Direct Entry Point for Refreshing Pool Mode Assets | Low | Solved - 03/18/2025 |
| Duplicate ModeConfig Accounts Can Cause Incorrect Yield Calculations in Pre-Closure | Low | Solved - 03/15/2025 |
| Lack of Two-Step Ownership Transfer in Pool Ownership and Treasury Updates | Informational | Acknowledged - 03/25/2025 |
| Improving Readability in Mode Addition Logic | Informational | Acknowledged - 03/25/2025 |
//Low
//Low
//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
Solana Programs
* Use Google Chrome for best results
** Check "Background Graphics" in the print settings if needed
