NAMI Protocol Rujira Index Product - THORChain


Prepared by:

Halborn Logo

HALBORN

Last Updated 08/11/2025

Date of Engagement: May 12th, 2025 - May 16th, 2025

Summary

100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed

All findings

17

Critical

0

High

1

Medium

4

Low

7

Informational

5


1. Introduction

THORChain engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment of the Nami Index contracts, beginning on May 13th, 2025 and ending on May 19th, 2025. This security assessment was scoped to the smart contracts in the Nami GitHub repository. Commit hashes and further details can be found in the Sources section of this report.


Nami Index is a protocol that enables the creation and management of tokenized index vaults on top of Thorchain. It allows users to deposit a single asset and receive diversified exposure across multiple assets according to predefined weights. The protocol handles rebalancing, swapping, and accounting through a set of CosmWasm smart contracts that interact with Thorchain’s liquidity network.


2. Caveats

All remediations described in this report were completed prior to the following commit, which serves as a consolidated snapshot of the final codebase. Although remediations may have been implemented across multiple earlier commits, this single commit includes all changes and can be used for verification purposes:

833f72787ee26d141008d2bb620cf324436a6d08


Below are the checksums for the deployed contracts:

Contract

Checksum

nami-index-nav

0ff970150655cb53687b6b478c6540f3deaec5ce06063ef64d3e02a519d6b56b

nami-index-fixed

63dd9426926704db38dc25b6c1830d202bbad7d92d8d298056cd7e0de3efd9ce

nami-index-entry-adapter

e9927b93feeef8fd2e8dcdca4695dddd38d0a832d8e62ad2c0e9cf2826a4f61a

nami-affiliate

223ea20a4463696fe32b23f845e9f90ae5c83ef0175894a4b0cec114b7dd4b26


3. 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 issues with the smart contracts


In summary, Halborn identified some improvements to reduce the likelihood and impact of risks, which have been partially addressed by the Nami team. The main ones were the following:

    • Restrict affiliate fee injection by enforcing a whitelist and storing fee parameters on-chain.

    • Prevent fee evasion by accumulating fractional fees in state or using ceiling rounding methods.

    • Ensure deposit logic uses up-to-date amount_per_share by reordering rebalances.

    • Limit Callback execution to known swap contracts by verifying the sender against the allocation map.

    • Isolate and track the exact quote_denom amount received in the first swap before performing the second during reallocation.

    • Enforce automatic rebalancing after relevant events or based on elapsed time in NAV index.

    • Support batched allocation updates to verify that total weights sum to 1 within a single atomic call.

    • Use separate min_return values for multi-step swaps or validate the final output instead of individual steps.

    • Validate that the registered denom matches the swap contract’s base denom and is not the quote token.

    • Reject duplicate allocation entries by checking for existing denom values before insertion.


4. Test Approach and Methodology

Halborn performed a combination of manual and automated security testing to balance efficiency, timeliness, practicality, and accuracy in regard to the scope of this assessment. While manual testing is recommended to uncover flaws in logic, process, and implementation; automated testing techniques help enhance coverage of the code and can quickly identify items that do not follow the security best practices. The following phases and associated tools were used during the assessment:

    • Research into architecture, purpose, and use of the platform.

    • Manual code read and walk through.

    • Manual Assessment of use and safety for the critical Rust variables and functions in scope to identify any arithmetic related vulnerability classes.

    • Architecture related logical controls.

    • Cross contract call controls.

    • Scanning of Rust files for vulnerabilities(cargo audit)

    • Review and verification of integration tests.


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 (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)+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

REPOSITORY
(a) Repository: nami-contracts
(b) Assessed Commit ID: 4dac9fd
(c) Items in scope:
  • contracts/nami-index-nav/src/events.rs
  • contracts/nami-index-nav/src/error.rs
  • contracts/nami-index-nav/src/config.rs
↓ Expand ↓
Out-of-Scope: Third party dependencies and economic attacks.
Remediation Commit ID:
Out-of-Scope: New features/implementations after the remediation commit IDs.

7. Assessment Summary & Findings Overview

Critical

0

High

1

Medium

4

Low

7

Informational

5

Security analysisRisk levelRemediation Date
Deposit value not multiplied by token priceHighSolved - 06/24/2025
Unrestricted affiliate fee injection enables fund redirection attacksMediumPartially Solved - 05/28/2025
Fee system vulnerable to rounding-based evasion attacksMediumSolved - 05/27/2025
Deposit uses outdated amount_per_share after prior withdrawMediumSolved - 05/28/2025
Unit mismatches in withdraw slippage flowMediumSolved - 08/08/2025
Callback can be triggered by unauthorized external contractsLowSolved - 05/27/2025
Reallocation uses full quote_denom balance without isolating sourceLowSolved - 05/27/2025
Missing validation that map key matches base denom in multiple contractsLowSolved - 05/27/2025
Allocation entries can be silently overwrittenLowSolved - 05/28/2025
Reuse of min_return across independent swaps in reallocationLowSolved - 05/27/2025
Lack of automatic rebalance enforcement may lead to stale or unbalanced portfoliosLowRisk Accepted - 05/28/2025
Weight sum cannot be verified with individual allocation updatesLowSolved - 05/28/2025
Lack of documentation across the codebaseInformationalAcknowledged - 05/29/2025
Inefficient swap strategy in Deposit flowInformationalAcknowledged - 05/28/2025
Burn + Mint fee shares could be simplified via transferInformationalSolved - 05/27/2025
Receipt token denoms are identical across different index typesInformationalSolved - 05/27/2025
Inconsistent slippage semantics across withdraw and rebalance functionsInformationalSolved - 05/27/2025

8. Findings & Tech Details

8.1 Deposit value not multiplied by token price

//

High

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.2 Unrestricted affiliate fee injection enables fund redirection attacks

//

Medium

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.3 Fee system vulnerable to rounding-based evasion attacks

//

Medium

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.4 Deposit uses outdated amount_per_share after prior withdraw

//

Medium

Description
Proof of Concept
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.5 Unit mismatches in withdraw slippage flow

//

Medium

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.6 Callback can be triggered by unauthorized external contracts

//

Low

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.7 Reallocation uses full quote_denom balance without isolating source

//

Low

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.8 Missing validation that map key matches base denom in multiple contracts

//

Low

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.9 Allocation entries can be silently overwritten

//

Low

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.10 Reuse of min_return across independent swaps in reallocation

//

Low

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.11 Lack of automatic rebalance enforcement may lead to stale or unbalanced portfolios

//

Low

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

8.12 Weight sum cannot be verified with individual allocation updates

//

Low

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.13 Lack of documentation across the codebase

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

8.14 Inefficient swap strategy in Deposit flow

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment

8.15 Burn + Mint fee shares could be simplified via transfer

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.16 Receipt token denoms are identical across different index types

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

8.17 Inconsistent slippage semantics across withdraw and rebalance functions

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
Recommendation
Remediation Comment
Remediation Hash

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.