Prepared by:
HALBORN
Last Updated 04/26/2024
Date of Engagement: June 1st, 2022 - August 31st, 2022
Summary
0% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed
All findings
15
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
0
Low
0
Informational
15
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Audit summary
- 3. Test approach & methodology
- 4. Scope
- 5. Risk methodology
- 6. Scope
- 7. Assessment summary & findings overview
- 8. Findings & Tech Details
- 8.1 Votes - denial of service
- 8.2 Rpc - no authentication required
- 8.3 Block queue warning will block instead of warning
- 8.4 Unfiltered parameter allowed to execute commands on the host
- 8.5 Lack of return error
- 8.6 Lack of size check - out-of-bounds
- 8.7 Incorrect `nil` value returned on an error
- 8.8 Multiple outdated modules
- 8.9 Error value evaluated but not applied
- 8.10 No `err` variable evaluation prior to an operation
- 8.11 Implicit memory aliasing in loop
- 8.12 Lack of default clause on switch statement
- 8.13 Insecure random number generator
- 8.14 Compare instead of equal
- 8.15 Multiple to-do comments found on the code
1. INTRODUCTION
Taraxa engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment on taraxa-node and Taraxa-EVM codebase from June 1st, 2022 to August 31st.
2. AUDIT SUMMARY
The team at Halborn was provided a timeline for the engagement and assigned two full-time security engineers to audit the security of the assets in scope. The engineers are blockchain and smart contract security experts with advanced penetration testing, smart contract hacking, and in-depth knowledge of multiple blockchain protocols.
The purpose of this audit is to achieve the following:
Identify potential security issues within
taraxa-nodeandTaraxa-EVM.
In summary, Halborn identified multiple security risks that were mostly addressed by the Taraxa team.
3. TEST APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
4. SCOPE
The assessment was scoped for the following projects details:
Taraxa-node (commit ID: d091acbb20853c629a8b04ea11dcf32241e1c897)
Taraxa-EVM (commit ID: a23dbf14f9cf8513f1bde13757e2d9b27cf2db8c)
The main particular components and libraries under review were: - RPC - P2P - Cryptography Signatures - Keys Management - Accounts and transactions - Consensus - Storage
5. RISK METHODOLOGY
- 5 - Almost certain an incident will occur.
- 4 - High probability of an incident occurring.
- 3 - Potential of a security incident in the long term.
- 2 - Low probability of an incident occurring.
- 1 - Very unlikely issue will cause an incident.
- 5 - May cause devastating and unrecoverable impact or loss.
- 4 - May cause a significant level of impact or loss.
- 3 - May cause a partial impact or loss to many.
- 2 - May cause temporary impact or loss.
- 1 - May cause minimal or un-noticeable impact.
- 10 - CRITICAL
- 9 - 8 - HIGH
- 7 - 6 - MEDIUM
- 5 - 4 - LOW
- 3 - 1 - VERY LOW AND INFORMATIONAL
6. SCOPE
7. Assessment Summary & Findings Overview
Critical
0
High
0
Medium
0
Low
0
Informational
15
| Security analysis | Risk level | Remediation Date |
|---|---|---|
| VOTES - DENIAL OF SERVICE | Informational | - |
| RPC - NO AUTHENTICATION REQUIRED | Informational | - |
| BLOCK QUEUE WARNING WILL BLOCK INSTEAD OF WARNING | Informational | - |
| UNFILTERED PARAMETER ALLOWED TO EXECUTE COMMANDS ON THE HOST | Informational | - |
| LACK OF RETURN ERROR | Informational | - |
| LACK OF SIZE CHECK - OUT-OF-BOUNDS | Informational | - |
| INCORRECT `NIL` VALUE RETURNED ON AN ERROR | Informational | - |
| MULTIPLE OUTDATED MODULES | Informational | - |
| ERROR VALUE EVALUATED BUT NOT APPLIED | Informational | - |
| NO `ERR` VARIABLE EVALUATION PRIOR TO AN OPERATION | Informational | - |
| IMPLICIT MEMORY ALIASING IN LOOP | Informational | - |
| LACK OF DEFAULT CLAUSE ON SWITCH STATEMENT | Informational | - |
| INSECURE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR | Informational | - |
| COMPARE INSTEAD OF EQUAL | Informational | - |
| MULTIPLE TO-DO COMMENTS FOUND ON THE CODE | Informational | - |
8. Findings & Tech Details
8.1 VOTES - DENIAL OF SERVICE
//
Description
Score
8.2 RPC - NO AUTHENTICATION REQUIRED
//
Description
Score
8.3 BLOCK QUEUE WARNING WILL BLOCK INSTEAD OF WARNING
//
Description
Score
8.4 UNFILTERED PARAMETER ALLOWED TO EXECUTE COMMANDS ON THE HOST
//
Description
Score
8.5 LACK OF RETURN ERROR
//
Description
Score
8.6 LACK OF SIZE CHECK - OUT-OF-BOUNDS
//
Description
Score
8.7 INCORRECT `NIL` VALUE RETURNED ON AN ERROR
//
Description
Score
8.8 MULTIPLE OUTDATED MODULES
//
Description
Score
8.9 ERROR VALUE EVALUATED BUT NOT APPLIED
//
Description
Score
8.10 NO `ERR` VARIABLE EVALUATION PRIOR TO AN OPERATION
//
Description
Score
8.11 IMPLICIT MEMORY ALIASING IN LOOP
//
Description
Score
8.12 LACK OF DEFAULT CLAUSE ON SWITCH STATEMENT
//
Description
Score
8.13 INSECURE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR
//
Description
Score
8.14 COMPARE INSTEAD OF EQUAL
//
Description
Score
8.15 MULTIPLE TO-DO COMMENTS FOUND ON THE CODE
//
Description
Score
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
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Audit summary
- 3. Test approach & methodology
- 4. Scope
- 5. Risk methodology
- 6. Scope
- 7. Assessment summary & findings overview
- 8. Findings & Tech Details
- 8.1 Votes - denial of service
- 8.2 Rpc - no authentication required
- 8.3 Block queue warning will block instead of warning
- 8.4 Unfiltered parameter allowed to execute commands on the host
- 8.5 Lack of return error
- 8.6 Lack of size check - out-of-bounds
- 8.7 Incorrect `nil` value returned on an error
- 8.8 Multiple outdated modules
- 8.9 Error value evaluated but not applied
- 8.10 No `err` variable evaluation prior to an operation
- 8.11 Implicit memory aliasing in loop
- 8.12 Lack of default clause on switch statement
- 8.13 Insecure random number generator
- 8.14 Compare instead of equal
- 8.15 Multiple to-do comments found on the code
// Download the full report
* Use Google Chrome for best results
** Check "Background Graphics" in the print settings if needed