EVM - TAC


Prepared by:

Halborn Logo

HALBORN

Last Updated 06/11/2025

Date of Engagement: May 21st, 2025 - May 30th, 2025

Summary

100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed

All findings

5

Critical

0

High

0

Medium

3

Low

2

Informational

0


1. Introduction

TAC engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment of their smart contracts from May 21st, 2025 to May 30th, 2025. The assessment focused on specific changes made to a Cosmos module provided to the Halborn team. Commit hashes and additional details are available in the Scope section of this report.

2. Assessment Summary

The Halborn team assigned two full-time security engineers to evaluate the security of the merge requests. These engineers are experts in blockchain and smart contract security, possessing advanced skills in penetration testing, smart contract auditing, and extensive knowledge of multiple blockchain protocols.

The objectives of this assessment were to:

    • Verify that the Golang components function as intended.

    • Identify potential security vulnerabilities within the Cosmos application.

 

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

    • Reverse the condition so that TxHash consistently reflects the intended header.

    • Assign rpcAddr directly from cfg.JSONRPC.Address to ensure the server binds to the configured host and port.

    • Assign each CommissionRates field from its corresponding Commission field.

3. Test Approach and Methodology

Halborn employed a combination of manual and automated security testing to balance efficiency, timeliness, practicality, and accuracy within the scope of the custom modules. Manual testing was used to uncover logical, procedural, and implementation flaws, while automated testing enhanced coverage and quickly identified deviations from security best practices. The following phases and tools were utilized during the assessment:

    • Research into architecture and purpose.

    • Static analysis of the scoped repository and imported functions using tools such as staticcheck, gosec, unconvert, codeql, ineffassign, and semgrep.

    • Manual assessment to identify security vulnerabilities within the codebase.

    • Verification of codebase correctness.

    • Dynamic analysis of files and modules within scope.

4. Caveats

CosmosEVM security assessment is limited to the files directly affected by the four Pull Requests listed in the Sources section. Only changes introduced or modified in this comparison were considered; any pre-existing vulnerabilities or issues outside these specific files are beyond the scope of this review. Additionally, the audit does not cover dependencies, configuration files, or runtime environments. Therefore, findings and recommendations apply solely to the code and files added, removed, or modified in this branch comparison.


TacChain is a fork of Cosmos EVM with minimal changes. This audit focused exclusively on the following modifications:

    • Custom Inflation Formulas

    • ERC20

    • WASM Removal


5. 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.

5.1 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

5.2 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 (I:N)
Low (I:L)
Medium (I:M)
High (I:H)
Critical (I: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}

5.3 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

6. SCOPE

Files and Repository
(a) Repository: tacchain
(b) Assessed Commit ID: ae44220
(c) Items in scope:
  • app/app.go
  • app/export.go
  • app/ante.go
↓ Expand ↓
Out-of-Scope: Third party dependencies and economic attacks.
Files and Repository
(a) Repository: TacBuild
(c) Items in scope:
  • Files modified in the mentioned PR.
Out-of-Scope: Third party dependencies and economic attacks.
Files and Repository
(a) Repository: TacBuild
(c) Items in scope:
  • Files modified in the mentioned PR.
Out-of-Scope: Third party dependencies and economic attacks.
Files and Repository
(a) Repository: TacBuild
(c) Items in scope:
  • Files modified in the mentioned PR.
Out-of-Scope: Third party dependencies and economic attacks.
Files and Repository
(a) Repository: TacBuild
(c) Items in scope:
  • Files modified in the mentioned PR.
Out-of-Scope: Third party dependencies and economic attacks.
Out-of-Scope: New features/implementations after the remediation commit IDs.

7. Assessment Summary & Findings Overview

Critical

0

High

0

Medium

3

Low

2

Informational

0

Security analysisRisk levelRemediation Date
Incorrect TxHash assignment in EthHeaderFromTendermint leads to malformed headersMediumRisk Accepted - 06/10/2025
Misassignment of CommissionRates fields in NewMsgCreateValidatorMediumRisk Accepted - 06/10/2025
Hardcoded loopback binding in NewWebsocketsServer prevents intended network exposureMediumRisk Accepted - 06/10/2025
Using vulnerable dependenciesLowAcknowledged - 06/10/2025
Division by Zero in Custom Inflation FormulasLowAcknowledged - 06/10/2025

8. Findings & Tech Details

8.1 Incorrect TxHash assignment in EthHeaderFromTendermint leads to malformed headers

//

Medium

Description

The EthHeaderFromTendermint function, located in the rpc/types/utils.go file, converts a Tendermint header into an Ethereum header.

func EthHeaderFromTendermint(header cmttypes.Header, bloom ethtypes.Bloom, baseFee *big.Int) *ethtypes.Header {
	txHash := ethtypes.EmptyRootHash
	if len(header.DataHash) == 0 {
		txHash = common.BytesToHash(header.DataHash)
	}

The function initializes txHash with ethtypes.EmptyRootHash and overwrites it only when the block contains no transaction data. As a result, blocks with transactions retain the empty root value, while empty blocks receive a non-empty hash derived from header.DataHash. This causes Ethereum headers to have an incorrect TxHash field for non-empty blocks, which can disrupt the header Merkle-proof validation process.

BVSS
Recommendation

It is recommended to reverse the condition, so TxHash always reflects the intended header.

txHash := ethtypes.EmptyRootHash
if len(header.DataHash) != 0 {
	txHash = common.BytesToHash(header.DataHash)
}

Remediation Comment

RISK ACCEPTED: The TAC team accepted the risk with the following comment - "This logic comes from the original Cosmos/EVM codebase, which we have not modified. We have informed the ICL team, who confirmed it will be addressed in their next release; we have not observed any issues with TxHash handling during empty blocks."

8.2 Misassignment of CommissionRates fields in NewMsgCreateValidator

//

Medium

Description

The NewMsgCreateValidator constructor is intended to translate a provided Commission (with Rate, MaxRate, and MaxChangeRate values) into the SDK’s CommissionRates. However, the code uses commission.Rate for all three fields, instead of taking commission.MaxRate and commission.MaxChangeRate.

	msg := &stakingtypes.MsgCreateValidator{
		Description: stakingtypes.Description{
			Moniker:         description.Moniker,
			Identity:        description.Identity,
			Website:         description.Website,
			SecurityContact: description.SecurityContact,
			Details:         description.Details,
		},
		Commission: stakingtypes.CommissionRates{
			Rate:          math.LegacyNewDecFromBigIntWithPrec(commission.Rate, math.LegacyPrecision),
			MaxRate:       math.LegacyNewDecFromBigIntWithPrec(commission.Rate, math.LegacyPrecision),
			MaxChangeRate: math.LegacyNewDecFromBigIntWithPrec(commission.Rate, math.LegacyPrecision),
		},
		MinSelfDelegation: math.NewIntFromBigInt(minSelfDelegation),
		DelegatorAddress:  sdk.AccAddress(validatorAddress.Bytes()).String(),
		ValidatorAddress:  sdk.ValAddress(validatorAddress.Bytes()).String(),
		Pubkey:            pubkey,
		Value:             sdk.Coin{Denom: denom, Amount: math.NewIntFromBigInt(value)},
	}

	return msg, validatorAddress, nil
}

type CommissionRates struct {
	// rate is the commission rate charged to delegators, as a fraction.
	Rate cosmossdk_io_math.LegacyDec `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=rate,proto3,customtype=cosmossdk.io/math.LegacyDec" json:"rate"`
	// max_rate defines the maximum commission rate which validator can ever charge, as a fraction.
	MaxRate cosmossdk_io_math.LegacyDec `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=max_rate,json=maxRate,proto3,customtype=cosmossdk.io/math.LegacyDec" json:"max_rate"`
	// max_change_rate defines the maximum daily increase of the validator commission, as a fraction.
	MaxChangeRate cosmossdk_io_math.LegacyDec `protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=max_change_rate,json=maxChangeRate,proto3,customtype=cosmossdk.io/math.LegacyDec" json:"max_change_rate"`
}

As a result, validators cannot set distinct upper bounds on their commission rate, effectively neutralizing the purpose of those configuration parameters.

BVSS
Recommendation

It is recommended to assign each CommissionRates field from its corresponding Commission field.

Remediation Comment

RISK ACCEPTED: The TAC team accepted the risk with the following comment - "This behavior is inherited from the original Cosmos/EVM implementation. We notified the ICL team, who confirmed it will be fixed in a future release; in practice, this has no effect on our chain, as our validators do not use this precompile path to create validators."

8.3 Hardcoded loopback binding in NewWebsocketsServer prevents intended network exposure

//

Medium

Description

The NewWebsocketsServer function, implemented in websockets.go file, is intended to initialize a WebSocket server that listens on the exact host and port defined in the user’s JSONRPC configuration.

func NewWebsocketsServer(clientCtx client.Context, logger log.Logger, tmWSClient *rpcclient.WSClient, cfg *config.Config) WebsocketsServer {
	logger = logger.With("api", "websocket-server")
	_, port, _ := net.SplitHostPort(cfg.JSONRPC.Address) // #nosec G703

	return &websocketsServer{
		rpcAddr:  "localhost:" + port, // FIXME: this shouldn't be hardcoded to localhost
		wsAddr:   cfg.JSONRPC.WsAddress,
		certFile: cfg.TLS.CertificatePath,
		keyFile:  cfg.TLS.KeyPath,
		api:      newPubSubAPI(clientCtx, logger, tmWSClient),
		logger:   logger,
	}
}

However, it discards the configured host, extracts only the port from cfg.JSONRPC.Address, and prepends localhost:, forcing the server to bind only to the loopback interface. This behavior prevents the server from being reachable on any other network interface, breaking any external connectivities. 

BVSS
Recommendation

It is recommended to assign rpcAddr directly from cfg.JSONRPC.Address so the server binds to the configured host and port.

Remediation Comment

RISK ACCEPTED: The TAC team accepted the risk with the following comment - "This is part of the original Cosmos/EVM logic, which we have not changed. We consulted the ICL team, who confirmed it will not impact our deployment and will be corrected upstream; we have not encountered accessibility issues with JSON-RPC nodes."

8.4 Using vulnerable dependencies

//

Low

Description

The project utilizes dependencies with known vulnerabilities, which could expose the application to various attacks. Specifically:


golang.org/x/net@v0.34.0:

  • CVE-2025-22870 (CVSS 6.9 - Medium): Improper input interpretation in proxy pattern matching for IPv6 zone IDs. This could lead to requests incorrectly bypassing the proxy, potentially exposing internal services or leading to unintended network behavior.

  • CVE-2025-22872 (CVSS 6.3 - Medium): Incorrect parsing of HTML tags with unquoted attribute values ending in a solidus (/) character. This can lead to misinterpretation of the DOM structure, potentially resulting in unexpected behavior or cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities if user-controlled data is involved in the malformed tags within foreign content (e.g., <math><svg>).



golang.org/x/crypto@v0.32.0:

  • CVE-2025-22869 (CVSS 6.9 - Medium): Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability in SSH servers implementing file transfer protocols. Clients that complete the key exchange slowly or not at all can cause the server to read pending content into memory without transmitting it, potentially leading to resource exhaustion.


BVSS
Recommendation

It is recommended to update these dependencies to patched versions to mitigate these risks.

Remediation Comment

ACKNOWLEDGED: The TAC team acknowledged the finding.

8.5 Division by Zero in Custom Inflation Formulas

//

Low

Description

In inflation.go, both custom inflation formulas (TacParabolicInflationFormula and TacLinearInflationFormula) contain division by zero vulnerabilities that can cause complete chain halt when triggered through governance parameter changes.


// Parabolic Formula - Line 19
delta := bondedRatio.Sub(params.GoalBonded).Quo(params.GoalBonded) // Fails if GoalBonded = 0

// Linear Formula - Line 58  
ratio := bondedRatio.Sub(params.GoalBonded).Quo(math.LegacyOneDec().Sub(params.GoalBonded)) // Fails if GoalBonded = 1

Impact:

  • Chain Halt: Network becomes completely unresponsive when inflation calculation fails.

  • Consensus Failure: All validators crash simultaneously during block processing.

  • Recovery Complexity: Requires coordinated hard fork with fixed binary to restore operation.

  • Attack Vector: Malicious governance proposal setting GoalBonded to 0% or 100%.


BVSS
Recommendation

Add proper validations:

func TacParabolicInflationFormula(_ context.Context, _ minttypes.Minter, params minttypes.Params, bondedRatio math.LegacyDec) math.LegacyDec {
    // Add bounds validation
    if params.GoalBonded.IsZero() || params.GoalBonded.LTE(math.LegacyZeroDec()) {
        return math.LegacyZeroDec() // Safe fallback
    }
    
    // Clamp bondedRatio to valid range [0,1]
    if bondedRatio.IsNegative() {
        bondedRatio = math.LegacyZeroDec()
    }
    if bondedRatio.GT(math.LegacyOneDec()) {
        bondedRatio = math.LegacyOneDec()
    }
    
    delta := bondedRatio.Sub(params.GoalBonded).Quo(params.GoalBonded)
    deltaSquared := delta.Mul(delta)
    adjustment := math.LegacyOneDec().Sub(deltaSquared)
    return params.InflationMax.Mul(adjustment)
}

func TacLinearInflationFormula(_ context.Context, _ minttypes.Minter, params minttypes.Params, bondedRatio math.LegacyDec) math.LegacyDec {
    // Add bounds validation
    if params.GoalBonded.IsZero() || params.GoalBonded.GTE(math.LegacyOneDec()) {
        return params.InflationMin // Safe fallback
    }
    
    // Clamp bondedRatio to valid range [0,1]
    if bondedRatio.IsNegative() || bondedRatio.GT(math.LegacyOneDec()) {
        return params.InflationMin
    }
    
    // Existing logic continues safely...
    if bondedRatio.LTE(params.GoalBonded) {
        ratio := bondedRatio.Quo(params.GoalBonded)
        return params.InflationMin.Add(params.InflationMax.Sub(params.InflationMin).Mul(ratio))
    }
    
    ratio := bondedRatio.Sub(params.GoalBonded).Quo(math.LegacyOneDec().Sub(params.GoalBonded))
    return params.InflationMax.Sub(params.InflationMax.Sub(params.InflationMin).Mul(ratio))
}

Remediation Comment

ACKNOWLEDGED: The TAC team acknowledged the finding with the following comment - "This scenario is not possible in practice due to Cosmos-SDK validation of goalBonded (always >0) and the natural limits of bondedRatio (always between 0 and 1). Our inflation formula implementation already ensures this logic is safe and efficient, and additional checks would add unnecessary overhead to per-block execution."

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.

© Halborn 2025. All rights reserved.