Prepared by:
HALBORN
Last Updated 08/29/2025
Date of Engagement: July 30th, 2025 - August 1st, 2025
Summary
100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed
All findings
1
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
1
Low
0
Informational
0
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
Open Eden engaged Halborn to perform a security assessment of their smart contracts from July 30th, 2025, to August 1st, 2025. The assessment scope was limited to the smart contracts provided to Halborn. Commit hashes and additional details are available in the Scope section of this report.
The Open Eden codebase in scope consists of a time-locked vault for ERC20 tokens.
2. Assessment Summary
Halborn was allocated 3 days for this engagement and assigned 1 full-time security engineer to conduct a comprehensive review of the smart contracts within scope. The engineer is an expert in blockchain and smart contract security, with advanced skills in penetration testing and smart contract exploitation, as well as extensive knowledge of multiple blockchain protocols.
The objectives of this assessment were to:
Identify potential security vulnerabilities within the smart contracts.
Verify that the smart contract functionality operates as intended.
In summary, Halborn identified an area for improvement to reduce the likelihood and impact of potential risks, which was completely addressed by the Open Eden team:
Add the whenNotPaused modifier to the withdraw() function to ensure that withdrawals are disabled when the vault is paused, maintaining consistency with the intended pause functionality and the previous contract version.
3. Test Approach and Methodology
Halborn conducted a combination of manual code review and automated security testing to balance efficiency, timeliness, practicality, and accuracy within the scope of this assessment. While manual testing is crucial for identifying flaws in logic, processes, and implementation, automated testing enhances coverage of smart contracts and quickly detects deviations from established security best practices.
The following phases and associated tools were employed throughout the term of the assessment:
Research into the platform's architecture, purpose and use.
Manual code review and walkthrough of smart contracts to identify any logical issues.
Comprehensive assessment of the safety and usage of critical Solidity variables and functions within scope that could lead to arithmetic-related vulnerabilities.
Local testing using custom scripts (
Foundry).Fork testing against main networks (
Foundry).Static security analysis of scoped contracts, and imported functions (
Slither).
4. Caveats
The current security assessment was focused solely on evaluating the changes introduced between commits 127f22b and 8142989.
It's important to note that despite these caveats, the security assessment aimed to provide a thorough evaluation of the protocol's security posture. However, the limitations mentioned above should be considered when interpreting the findings and recommendations.
5. RISK METHODOLOGY
5.1 EXPLOITABILITY
Attack Origin (AO):
Attack Cost (AC):
Attack Complexity (AX):
Metrics:
| 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 |
5.2 IMPACT
Confidentiality (C):
Integrity (I):
Availability (A):
Deposit (D):
Yield (Y):
Metrics:
| 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 |
5.3 SEVERITY COEFFICIENT
Reversibility (R):
Scope (S):
Metrics:
| 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 |
6. SCOPE
- contracts/StabilityVault.sol
7. Assessment Summary & Findings Overview
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
1
Low
0
Informational
0
| Security analysis | Risk level | Remediation Date |
|---|---|---|
| Missing whenNotPaused modifier allows withdrawals while paused | Medium | Solved - 08/03/2025 |
8. Findings & Tech Details
8.1 Missing whenNotPaused modifier allows withdrawals while paused
//
Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash
9. Automated Testing
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.
Table of Contents
// Download the full report
Stability Vault
* Use Google Chrome for best results
** Check "Background Graphics" in the print settings if needed