🗓️ Join us January 23rd, 2026 in NYC for ACCESS, a premier digital asset security summit→

Solutions

Company

Resources

Blog

Contact

Login

    • Assurance

      Smart Contract Assessment

      Securing code integrity, protecting digital assets

      Blockchain Layer 1 Assessment

      Assessing protocols, securing blockchain foundations

      Code Security Audit

      Uncovering flaws, strengthening software integrity

      Web Application Penetration Testing

      Exposing weaknesses, fortifying digital defenses

      Cloud Infrastructure Penetration Testing

      Securing configurations, protecting critical environments

      Red Team Exercise

      Simulating real-world attacks, strengthening defenses

      AI Red Teaming

      Testing AI systems against real threats

      AI Security Assessment

      Securing AI models, data, and pipelines

    • Advisory

      AI Advisory

      Guiding secure, strategic AI adoption forward

      Risk Assessment

      From unknown threats to actionable insights

      Blockchain Architecture Assessment

      Optimizing architecture for tomorrow’s networks

      Compliance Readiness

      Stay ready as regulations evolve

      Custody and Key Management Assessment

      Securing the heart of digital custody

      Technical Due Diligence

      See the risks before you invest

      Technical Training

      Empower your teams to secure what matters

    • Who We Are

      The best security engineers in the world

      Careers

      Work with the elite

      Who Trusts Us

      The trusted security advisor for blockchain and financial services industries

      Brand

      Access official logos, fonts, and guidelines

      Service Commitments

      Committed to Protecting Your Data

    • Audits

      In-depth evaluations of smart contracts and blockchain infrastructures

      BVSS

      Blockchain Vulnerability Scoring System

      Disclosures

      All the latest vulnerabilities discovered by Halborn

      Case Studies

      How Halborn’s solutions have empowered clients to overcome security issues

      Reports

      Comprehensive reports and data

  • Blog

  • Contact

  • Login

THIS WEBSITE USES COOKIES

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you've provided to them or that they've collected from your use of their services. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. Learn More.

STAY CURRENT WITH HALBORN

Subscribe to the monthly Halborn Digest for our top blogs and videos, major company announcements, new whitepapers, webinar and event invites, and one exclusive interview.

ADVISORY SERVICES

AI AdvisoryRisk AssessmentBlockchain Architecture AssessmentCompliance ReadinessCustody and Key Management AssessmentTechnical Due DiligenceTechnical Training

ASSURANCE SERVICES

AI Security AssessmentAI Red TeamingSmart Contract AssessmentBlockchain Layer 1 AssessmentCode Security AuditWeb Application Penetration TestingCloud Infrastructure Penetration TestingRed Team Exercise

COMPANY

Who We AreWho Trusts UsService CommitmentsCareersBrandBlogContact

RESOURCES

AuditsDisclosuresReportsBVSSCase Studies
Halborn Logo
Privacy PolicyTerms of UseVulnerability Disclosure Policy

© Halborn 2026. All rights reserved.

Background

// Security Assessment

10.29.2025 - 11.03.2025

Credit Accounts

THORChain / Rujira

Halborn logotext
← Back to Audits

Credit Accounts - THORChain / Rujira


Prepared by:

Halborn Logo

HALBORN

Last Updated 12/08/2025

Date of Engagement: October 29th, 2025 - November 3rd, 2025

Summary

100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed

All findings

7

Critical

0

High

0

Medium

2

Low

2

Informational

3


Table of Contents

  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Assessment summary
  • 3. Test approach and methodology
  • 4. Risk methodology
  • 5. Scope
  • 6. Assessment summary & findings overview
  • 7. Findings & Tech Details
    1. 7.1 Conflicting liquidation checks allow denial of service
    2. 7.2 Liquidation dos when final ltv drops below adjustment_threshold
    3. 7.3 Missing validation for liquidation preferences
    4. 7.4 Missing enforcement of critical configuration invariants
    5. 7.5 Missing validation in setvault and setcollateral
    6. 7.6 Division-by-zero in adjusted ltv
    7. 7.7 Missing repay message allows incomplete settlement flow

1. Introduction

THORChain engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment of the Ghost Credit contracts, beginning on October 29th, 2025 and ending on November 4th, 2025. This security assessment was scoped to the CosmWasm smart contracts in the Rujira Ghost repository. Commit hashes and further details can be found in the Sources section of this report.


Ghost Credit is a decentralized credit module designed for the Rujira ecosystem. It enables users to create self-custodied credit accounts that interact with mapped Ghost Vault markets to borrow and repay assets against on-chain collateral. The system enforces per-account Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratios, supports permissionless liquidations with bounded over-liquidation windows, and integrates liquidation preferences to determine the order of collateral consumption. The contracts are implemented in Rust using CosmWasm and operate over THOR chain.

2. Assessment Summary

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

The purpose of this assessment is to:

    • Ensure that smart-contract functions operate as intended

    • Identify potential security and logic issues within the contract implementation


In summary, Halborn identified several improvements to reduce the likelihood and impact of operational and financial risks, which were partially addressed by the Rujira team. The main ones were the following:

    • Refactor liquidation validation to separate collateral and debt sets, ignore debt-denom increases, and compute slippage in USD value with oracle pricing.

    • Treat “Account Safe” (LTV below adjustment threshold) as a successful liquidation outcome or remove the unnecessary unsafe check from the liquidation path.

    • Validate liquidation preferences on save to reject cycles, self-references, and invalid or non-whitelisted denoms, and ensure acyclic dependency enforcement.

    • Add strict configuration validation enforcing coherent thresholds, fee sums below 1, valid liquidation windows, and consistent parameter ranges on every update.

    • Enforce cross-validation in SetVault and SetCollateral ensuring ratios are in [0,1], borrow denoms are whitelisted, and mappings remain consistent under governance updates.

    • Guard LTV calculations against division-by-zero and rounding errors by returning safe sentinel values and performing conservative comparisons in post-checks.


3. Test Approach and Methodology

Halborn performed a combination of manual and automated security testing to ensure coverage and precision throughout this assessment. Manual review focused on business logic, inter-contract interactions, and edge-case validation, while automated tooling was used to detect known vulnerability classes and dependency risks. The following phases and techniques were used during the audit:

    • Research into the architecture, purpose, and integration with Ghost Vault contracts.

    • Manual line-by-line code review and walkthrough of all CosmWasm modules in scope.

    • Manual assessment of critical functions to detect arithmetic and logical vulnerabilities.

    • Evaluation of post-check atomicity and liquidation invariants.

    • Verification of authorization boundaries and sudo/admin safety.

    • Review of cross-contract calls to external vaults and potential DoS vectors.

    • Automated static analysis using cargo audit and other Rust-specific scanning tools.

    • Review and verification of integration and multi-test scenarios for borrow/repay/liquidation flows.


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_eme​)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 EEE is calculated using the following formula:

E=∏meE = \prod m_eE=∏me​

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_ImI​)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 III is calculated using the following formula:

I=max(mI)+∑mI−max(mI)4I = max(m_I) + \frac{\sum{m_I} - max(m_I)}{4}I=max(mI​)+4∑mI​−max(mI​)​

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 (CCC)COEFFICIENT VALUENUMERICAL VALUE
Reversibility (rrr)None (R:N)
Partial (R:P)
Full (R:F)
1
0.5
0.25
Scope (sss)Changed (S:C)
Unchanged (S:U)
1.25
1
Severity Coefficient CCC is obtained by the following product:

C=rsC = rsC=rs

The Vulnerability Severity Score SSS is obtained by:

S=min(10,EIC∗10)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: rujira
(b) Assessed Commit ID: 9989bb5
(c) Items in scope:
  • contracts/rujira-ghost-credit/src/events.rs
  • contracts/rujira-ghost-credit/src/error.rs
  • contracts/rujira-ghost-credit/src/config.rs
  • contracts/rujira-ghost-credit/src/lib.rs
  • contracts/rujira-ghost-credit/src/account.rs
  • contracts/rujira-ghost-credit/src/state.rs
  • contracts/rujira-ghost-credit/src/contract.rs
  • packages/rujira-rs/src/interfaces/ghost/credit/interface.rs
  • packages/rujira-rs/src/interfaces/ghost/credit/collateral.rs
  • packages/rujira-rs/src/interfaces/ghost/credit/mod.rs
  • packages/rujira-rs/src/interfaces/ghost/credit/debt.rs
  • contracts/rujira-ghost-credit/src/events.rs
  • contracts/rujira-ghost-credit/src/error.rs
  • contracts/rujira-ghost-credit/src/config.rs
↓ Expand ↓
Out-of-Scope: Third party dependencies and economic attacks.
Remediation Commit ID:
  • 1f6cce7
  • beaf062
  • ed05d6f
  • 07bf175
Out-of-Scope: New features/implementations after the remediation commit IDs.

6. Assessment Summary & Findings Overview

Critical

0

High

0

Medium

2

Low

2

Informational

3

Security analysisRisk levelRemediation Date
Conflicting liquidation checks allow Denial of ServiceMediumSolved - 11/24/2025
Liquidation DoS when final LTV drops below adjustment_thresholdMediumNot Applicable - 11/28/2025
Missing validation for liquidation preferencesLowSolved - 11/24/2025
Missing enforcement of critical configuration invariantsLowSolved - 11/24/2025
Missing validation in SetVault and SetCollateralInformationalSolved - 11/24/2025
Division-by-zero in adjusted LTVInformationalAcknowledged - 11/28/2025
Missing Repay message allows incomplete settlement flowInformationalAcknowledged

7. Findings & Tech Details

7.1 Conflicting liquidation checks allow Denial of Service

//

Medium

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
AO:A/AC:L/AX:M/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:H/I:N/D:N/Y:N (5.0)
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash
https://gitlab.com/thorchain/rujira/-/commit/1f6cce711b0245c13222fbc773000d650cc9536c

7.2 Liquidation DoS when final LTV drops below adjustment_threshold

//

Medium

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
AO:A/AC:L/AX:M/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:H/I:N/D:N/Y:N (5.0)
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

7.3 Missing validation for liquidation preferences

//

Low

Description
BVSS
AO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:C/I:C/D:N/Y:N (2.5)
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash
https://gitlab.com/thorchain/rujira/-/commit/beaf062d0c964fe59d69af23ffeb9c2109a63971

7.4 Missing enforcement of critical configuration invariants

//

Low

Description
BVSS
AO:S/AC:L/AX:M/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:C/I:C/D:C/Y:N (2.0)
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash
https://gitlab.com/thorchain/rujira/-/commit/ed05d6fa8830949e1d171383af700857a2540fb0

7.5 Missing validation in SetVault and SetCollateral

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
AO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:N/I:H/D:N/Y:N (1.5)
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash
https://gitlab.com/thorchain/rujira/-/commit/07bf1750944c10c238e0ffe5e2ab3310d6525b7e

7.6 Division-by-zero in adjusted LTV

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
AO:S/AC:L/AX:H/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:C/I:N/D:N/Y:N (0.7)
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

7.7 Missing Repay message allows incomplete settlement flow

//

Informational

Description
Score
(0.0)
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

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. Assessment summary
  • 3. Test approach and methodology
  • 4. Risk methodology
  • 5. Scope
  • 6. Assessment summary & findings overview
  • 7. Findings & Tech Details
    1. 7.1 Conflicting liquidation checks allow denial of service
    2. 7.2 Liquidation dos when final ltv drops below adjustment_threshold
    3. 7.3 Missing validation for liquidation preferences
    4. 7.4 Missing enforcement of critical configuration invariants
    5. 7.5 Missing validation in setvault and setcollateral
    6. 7.6 Division-by-zero in adjusted ltv
    7. 7.7 Missing repay message allows incomplete settlement flow

// Download the full report

Credit Accounts

* Use Google Chrome for best results

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