← Back to Audits

Ripple - Single Asset Vault - Smart Contract Assessment - Ripple

Prepared by:

Halborn Logo

HALBORN

Last Updated 06/27/2025

Date of Engagement: February 17th, 2025 - March 13th, 2025

Summary

100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed

All findings

7

Critical

2

High

1

Medium

2

Low

1

Informational

1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Ripple engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment on XRP Ledger (XRPL) feature amendments beginning on February 17, 2025 and ending on March 13, 2025, focusing on PR #5224


The feature introduces a Single Asset Tokenized Vault, a new on-chain primitive that allows for aggregating assets (XRP, IOU, or MPT) from one or more depositors and represents ownership through MPToken shares. The vault serves as a foundational building block for diverse purposes such as lending markets, aggregators, yield-bearing tokens, and asset management by decoupling the liquidity provision functionality from specific protocol logic. The implementation includes core functionality for vault creation, deposits, withdrawals, and clawback operations, with support for both public and private vaults through permissioned domains.

2. Assessment Summary

The team at Halborn assigned a full-time security engineer to assess the security of the node. The security engineer is a blockchain and smart-contract security expert in advanced penetration testing, smart-contract hacking, and deep knowledge of multiple blockchain protocols.


The scope of this audit encompasses:

    • Single Asset Vault Ledger Entry Implementation

    • Core Vault Transaction Types (Create, Set, Delete, Deposit, Withdraw, Clawback)

    • Share Token Management and Access Controls

    • Asset Handling and Transfer Mechanisms

    • Vault State Management and Accounting

3. Test Approach and Methodology


Halborn performed a combination of manual review of the code and automated security testing to balance efficiency, timeliness, practicality, and accuracy in regard to the scope of the Batch Transaction feature security assessment. The following phases and tools were used:

    • Research into the architecture and mechanics of the Single Asset Vault through review of the specification, including asset management, share tokenization, and vault ownership models.

    • Manual code review and walkthrough to identify potential vulnerabilities in vault operations, share calculations, and asset transfers.

    • Security control testing for vault access restrictions, private vault permissions, and non-transferable share enforcement.

    • Documentation analysis covering vault creation parameters, transaction flows, and security considerations.

    • Edge case testing for asset freezes, transfer fees, and maximum vault capacity limits.

    • Functional testing of transaction processing flows and error handling mechanisms.

    • Review of error handling and recovery mechanisms.


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)+∑mI−max(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,EIC∗10)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: rippled
(b) Assessed Commit ID: 9d619b9
(c) Items in scope:
  • "include/xrpl/json/json_value.h"
  • "include/xrpl/protocol/AMMCore.h"
  • "include/xrpl/protocol/Asset.h"
↓ Expand ↓
Remediation Commit ID:
Out-of-Scope: New features/implementations after the remediation commit IDs.

6. Assessment Summary & Findings Overview

Critical

2

High

1

Medium

2

Low

1

Informational

1

Security analysisRisk levelRemediation Date
Insufficient Amount Validation in Vault OperationsCriticalSolved - 03/12/2025
Vault Fails to Account for IOU Transfer Fees Leading to Negative User BalancesCriticalSolved - 04/01/2025
Unsafe Arithmetic Operations in Vault Asset ManagementHighNot Applicable - 04/01/2025
Missing Validation Allows Creation of Private Vaults for XRP Native AssetMediumRisk Accepted - 04/01/2025
Missing Validation Allows Setting of Contradictory Vault FlagsMediumRisk Accepted - 04/01/2025
Missing Non-Transferable Share Validation in Vault WithdrawalsLowRisk Accepted - 04/01/2025
Avoid Unnecessary Processing Overhead via Early Authorization CheckInformationalSolved - 04/01/2025

7. Findings & Tech Details

7.1 Insufficient Amount Validation in Vault Operations

//

Critical

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash
https://github.com/XRPLF/rippled/pull/5224/commits/04503c9fa4ce1582946c8875e832ed26d5ddb4a5

7.2 Vault Fails to Account for IOU Transfer Fees Leading to Negative User Balances

//

Critical

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash
https://github.com/XRPLF/rippled/pull/5224/commits/0959bf82b7bb971442c80464e1d731c37e20593b

7.3 Unsafe Arithmetic Operations in Vault Asset Management

//

High

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

7.4 Missing Validation Allows Creation of Private Vaults for XRP Native Asset

//

Medium

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

7.5 Missing Validation Allows Setting of Contradictory Vault Flags

//

Medium

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

7.6 Missing Non-Transferable Share Validation in Vault Withdrawals

//

Low

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

7.7 Avoid Unnecessary Processing Overhead via Early Authorization Check

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash
https://github.com/XRPLF/rippled/pull/5224/commits/09833abd46072972cdd15a5b59256d8bd80bc208

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

Ripple - Single Asset Vault - Smart Contract Assessment

* Use Google Chrome for best results

** Check "Background Graphics" in the print settings if needed