Prepared by:
HALBORN
Last Updated 08/14/2025
Date of Engagement: July 8th, 2025 - July 9th, 2025
100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed
All findings
2
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
0
Low
0
Informational
2
iExec engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment on their smart contracts beginning on July 8th, 2025 and ending on July 9th, 2025. The security assessment was scoped to the smart contracts provided to Halborn. Commit hashes and further details can be found in the Scope section of this report.
The RLC Multichain Bridge codebase in scope consists of a few different smart contracts, responsible for bridging tokens across chains, using LayerZero.
Halborn was provided 2 days for the engagement and assigned a full-time security engineer to review the security of the smart contracts in scope.
The purpose of the assessment is to:
Identify potential security issues within the smart contracts.
Ensure that smart contract functionality operates as intended.
In summary, Halborn did not identify any significant security risks. However, some enhancements were recommended to improve code clarity, consistency, or maintainability. These were partially addressed by the iExec team:
Consider using a fixed pragma version.
Consider fixing the typographical errors in the codebase.
After the initial assessment, the iExec team reported a role management issue affecting the IexecLayerZeroBridge file. Halborn performed a post-assessment review at pull request PR77 to verify the fixes, and confirmed that the issue has been addressed.
Halborn performed a manual review of the code. Manual testing is great to uncover flaws in logic, process, and implementation.
The following phases and associated tools were used throughout the term of the assessment:
Research into architecture, purpose and use of the platform.
Smart contract manual code review and walkthrough to identify any logic issue.
Thorough assessment of safety and usage of critical Solidity variables and functions in scope that could led to arithmetic related vulnerabilities.
| 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
0
Informational
2
| Security analysis | Risk level | Remediation Date |
|---|---|---|
| Floating pragma | Informational | Acknowledged - 08/13/2025 |
| Typographical error | Informational | Solved - 07/15/2025 |
//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
RLC Multichain Bridge
* Use Google Chrome for best results
** Check "Background Graphics" in the print settings if needed
