Prepared by:
HALBORN
Last Updated 06/11/2025
Date of Engagement: May 21st, 2025 - May 30th, 2025
100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed
All findings
5
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
3
Low
2
Informational
0
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.
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.
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.
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
| 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
3
Low
2
Informational
0
| Security analysis | Risk level | Remediation Date |
|---|---|---|
| Incorrect TxHash assignment in EthHeaderFromTendermint leads to malformed headers | Medium | Risk Accepted - 06/10/2025 |
| Misassignment of CommissionRates fields in NewMsgCreateValidator | Medium | Risk Accepted - 06/10/2025 |
| Hardcoded loopback binding in NewWebsocketsServer prevents intended network exposure | Medium | Risk Accepted - 06/10/2025 |
| Using vulnerable dependencies | Low | Acknowledged - 06/10/2025 |
| Division by Zero in Custom Inflation Formulas | Low | Acknowledged - 06/10/2025 |
//Medium
//Medium
//Medium
//Low
//Low
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
EVM
* Use Google Chrome for best results
** Check "Background Graphics" in the print settings if needed
