Rain v2 - Rain Protocol


Prepared by:

Halborn Logo

HALBORN

Last Updated 08/15/2025

Date of Engagement: June 30th, 2025 - July 25th, 2025

Summary

100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed

All findings

14

Critical

0

High

0

Medium

2

Low

4

Informational

8


1. Introduction

Rain Protocol engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment of the bank and defi-lending programs from June 30th to July 25th, 2025. The security assessment was scoped to the smart contracts provided in the GitHub repository rain-v2, commit hashes and further details can be found in the Scope section of this report.


Rain Protocol is a modular lending platform composed of two programs Bank and Defi-Lending. The Bank program enables users to create either shared or personal banks, where liquidity providers (LPs) can deposit funds that are either borrowed by lending pools or delegated to MarginFi Protocol. The Defi-Lending program provides the core lending mechanism for facilitating loans, repayments, loan extensions, and liquidations through the use of pools. It also enables borrowers to repay their loans by selling collateral directly for the borrowed amount. A distinctive feature of the protocol is its time based liquidation model, where loans are liquidated strictly based on their expiration time, rather than the supplied collateral simplifying the liquidation logic.

2. Assessment Summary


Halborn was provided 4 weeks for the engagement and assigned 3 full-time security engineers to review the security of the Solana Programs in scope. The engineers are blockchain and smart contract security experts 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 Solana Program.

    • Ensure that smart contract functionality operates as intended.


In summary, Halborn identified some improvements to reduce the likelihood and impact of risks, which were mostly addressed by the Rain Protocol team. The main ones were the following:

    • Introduce a prior validation of the 'is_compounding_enabled' flag from the pool configuration before invoking 'pool.new_loan' in extend_loan.

    • Iterate over the provided 'currency' vector during pool creation and explicitly validate each entry by calling the 'is_correct' method.

    • Provide the corresponding bank's token program to the 'repay' CPI call.

    • Reorder the logic in deposit function in the vault to perform the validation before modifying the 'deposited' field ensuring the unlimited deposit case is still allowed.

    • Add a validation in 'check_swap_instruction' to ensure the provided destination token account to the swap matches the 'quote_vault'.

    • Add a validation to forbid delegate operations in shared banks.



3. Test Approach and Methodology

Halborn performed a combination of a manual review of the source code and automated security testing to balance efficiency, timeliness, practicality, and accuracy in regard to the scope of the program assessment. While manual testing is recommended to uncover flaws in business logic, processes, and implementation; automated testing techniques help enhance coverage of programs and can quickly identify items that do not follow security best practices.


The following phases and associated tools were used throughout the term of the assessment:

    • Research into the architecture, purpose, and use of the platform.

    • Manual program source code review to identify business logic issues.

    • Mapping out possible attack vectors.

    • Thorough assessment of safety and usage of critical Rust variables and functions in scope that could lead to arithmetic vulnerabilities.

    • Scanning dependencies for known vulnerabilities (cargo audit).

    • Local runtime testing (anchor test).


4. 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 (mem_e)METRIC VALUENUMERICAL 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
Exploitability EE is calculated using the following formula:

E=meE = \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 (mIm_I)METRIC VALUENUMERICAL 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
Impact II is calculated using the following formula:

I=max(mI)+mImax(mI)4I = 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 (CC)COEFFICIENT VALUENUMERICAL VALUE
Reversibility (rr)None (R:N)
Partial (R:P)
Full (R:F)
1
0.5
0.25
Scope (ss)Changed (S:C)
Unchanged (S:U)
1.25
1
Severity Coefficient CC is obtained by the following product:

C=rsC = rs

The Vulnerability Severity Score SS is obtained by:

S=min(10,EIC10)S = min(10, EIC * 10)

The score is rounded up to 1 decimal places.
SeverityScore Value Range
Critical9 - 10
High7 - 8.9
Medium4.5 - 6.9
Low2 - 4.4
Informational0 - 1.9

5. SCOPE

REPOSITORY
(a) Repository: rain-v2
(b) Assessed Commit ID: 55c6cab
(c) Items in scope:
  • defi-lending/program/src/error.rs
  • defi-lending/program/src/instructions/admin.rs
  • defi-lending/program/src/instructions/currency.rs
↓ Expand ↓
Out-of-Scope: Third party dependencies and economic attacks.
Remediation Commit ID:
  • 1846fad
  • a9e11d1
  • 6541c87
  • 67ae963
  • 82373bb
  • 07014a5
  • d502e8b
  • 7f66f76
  • 3324dd9
  • 81041ee
Out-of-Scope: New features/implementations after the remediation commit IDs.

6. Assessment Summary & Findings Overview

Critical

0

High

0

Medium

2

Low

4

Informational

8

Security analysisRisk levelRemediation Date
Exposure validation may overestimate available liquidity due to included unavailable interestMediumSolved - 07/31/2025
Lack of validation of the vector currencies during pool creationMediumSolved - 08/01/2025
Inconsistent Token Program Alignment Can Break LiquidationsLowSolved - 07/31/2025
Max deposit enforcement may fail due to early state mutationLowSolved - 07/31/2025
Missing validation of swap destination token account may lead to loan loss LowPartially Solved - 07/31/2025
Allowing delegation in shared banks may lead to withdrawal abuse and unfair loss distributionLowSolved - 07/31/2025
Lack of validation for token 2022 extensions InformationalAcknowledged - 08/06/2025
Multiple missing validations could lead to program panicInformationalSolved - 07/31/2025
Missing validation on withdrawal window during vault update can block withdrawalsInformationalSolved - 07/31/2025
Missing validation in config updates can block new pool creationInformationalSolved - 07/31/2025
Incomplete validation during admins and managers addition InformationalSolved - 07/31/2025
Unnecessary Account included in margin_swap_standalone Instruction InformationalAcknowledged - 08/01/2025
Fee account not enforced as canonical associated token accountInformationalAcknowledged - 08/01/2025
Unused quote field adds redundancy in quote structInformationalAcknowledged - 08/01/2025

7. Findings & Tech Details

7.1 Exposure validation may overestimate available liquidity due to included unavailable interest

//

Medium

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

7.2 Lack of validation of the vector currencies during pool creation

//

Medium

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

7.3 Inconsistent Token Program Alignment Can Break Liquidations

//

Low

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

7.4 Max deposit enforcement may fail due to early state mutation

//

Low

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

7.5 Missing validation of swap destination token account may lead to loan loss

//

Low

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

7.6 Allowing delegation in shared banks may lead to withdrawal abuse and unfair loss distribution

//

Low

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

7.7 Lack of validation for token 2022 extensions

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

7.8 Multiple missing validations could lead to program panic

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

7.9 Missing validation on withdrawal window during vault update can block withdrawals

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

7.10 Missing validation in config updates can block new pool creation

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

7.11 Incomplete validation during admins and managers addition

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

7.12 Unnecessary Account included in margin_swap_standalone Instruction

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

7.13 Fee account not enforced as canonical associated token account

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

7.14 Unused quote field adds redundancy in quote struct

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

8. 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.