Zrchain Audit | Zenrock Laboratories

Summary

100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed

About this report

Assessment Type

Assurance Assessment

Date of Engagement

August 5th, 2024 - September 11th, 2024

Source Code

zenrock

Assessed Commit ID

aa6040f

Severity Breakdown

1Acknowledged
1Risk Accepted
4Solved
6All Findings

Critical0
High1
- 1Solved
Medium1
- 1Solved
Low2
- 1Solved
- 1Risk A.
Informational2
- 1Solved
- 1Ack.

Introduction#

Zenrock engaged Halborn to conduct a security assessment on their modules, beginning on Halborn to conduct a security assessment on the appchain modules, beginning on 08/05/2024 and ending on 09/11/2024. The security assessment was scoped to the sections of code that pertain to the modules. Commit hashes and further details can be found in the Scope section of this report.

Assessment Summary#

Halborn was provided 4 weeks for the engagement and assigned 1 full-time security engineer to review the security of the smart contracts in scope. The engineer is a blockchain and smart contract security experts with advanced penetration testing and smart contract hacking skills, and deep knowledge of multiple blockchain protocols.

The purpose of the assessment is to:

- Ensure that the Zenrock Chain Modules operate as intended.

- Identify potential security issues with the Zenrock Chain Modules in the Zenrock Chain.

In summary, Halborn identified some security concerns that were mostly addressed by the Zenrock team.

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 the custom modules. While manual testing is recommended to uncover flaws in logic, process, and implementation; automated testing techniques help enhance coverage of structures and can quickly identify items that do not follow security best practices. The following phases and associated tools were used throughout the term of the assessment:

- Research into architecture and purpose.

- Static Analysis of security for scoped repository, and imported functions. (e.g., staticcheck, gosec, unconvert, codeql, ineffassign and semgrep)

- Manual Assessment for discovering security vulnerabilities in the codebase.

- Ensuring the correctness of the codebase.

- Dynamic Analysis of files and modules related to the modules.

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 ( $m_e$ )	METRIC VALUE	NUMERICAL VALUE
Attack Origin (AO)	Arbitrary (AO:A)	1
Attack Origin (AO)	Specific (AO:S)	0.2
Attack Cost (AC)	Low (AC:L)	1
	Medium (AC:M)	0.67
	High (AC:H)	0.33
Attack Complexity (AX)	Low (AX:L)	1
	Medium (AX:M)	0.67
	High (AX:H)	0.33

Exploitability

E

is calculated using the following formula:

$E = \prod m_e$

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 ( $m_I$ )	METRIC VALUE	NUMERICAL VALUE
Confidentiality (C)	None (C:N)	0
	Low (C:L)	0.25
	Medium (C:M)	0.5
	High (C:H)	0.75
	Critical (C:C)	1
Integrity (I)	None (I:N)	0
	Low (I:L)	0.25
	Medium (I:M)	0.5
	High (I:H)	0.75
	Critical (I:C)	1
Availability (A)	None (A:N)	0
	Low (A:L)	0.25
	Medium (A:M)	0.5
	High (A:H)	0.75
	Critical (A:C)	1
Deposit (D)	None (D:N)	0
	Low (D:L)	0.25
	Medium (D:M)	0.5
	High (D:H)	0.75
	Critical (D:C)	1
Yield (Y)	None (Y:N)	0
	Low (Y:L)	0.25
	Medium (Y:M)	0.5
	High (Y:H)	0.75
	Critical (Y:C)	1

Impact

I

is calculated using the following formula:

$I = max(m_I) + \frac{\sum{m_I} - max(m_I)}{4}$

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 ( $C$ )	COEFFICIENT VALUE	NUMERICAL VALUE
Reversibility ( $r$ )	None (R:N)	1
	Partial (R:P)	0.5
	Full (R:F)	0.25
Scope ( $s$ )	Changed (S:C)	1.25
Scope ( $s$ )	Unchanged (S:U)	1

Severity Coefficient

C

is obtained by the following product:

$C = rs$

The Vulnerability Severity Score

S

is obtained by:

$S = min(10, EIC * 10)$

The score is rounded up to 1 decimal places.

Critical	High	Medium	Low	Informational
9 - 10	7 - 8.9	4.5 - 6.9	2 - 4.4	0 - 1.9

Scope#

(a) Repository:zenrock

(b) Assessed Commit ID:aa6040febf29ee62c3e36e5af2e585cc570678bf

5 files

genutil

identity

policy

treasury

validation

Out-of-Scope: New features/implementations after the remediation commit IDs.

Assessment Summary & Findings Overview#

#	Title	Severity	Score	Status
HAL-01	Unhandled Error in AddApprover Call Within ApproveAction Function	High	7.0	Solved09/09/2024
HAL-02	Implement Support for ERC-20 transferFrom Method in ParseEthereumTransaction	Medium	6.3	Solved09/10/2024
HAL-03	Implement PartyThreshold Validation in NewKeyring Function	Low	2.5	Solved09/09/2024
HAL-04	Implement Expiration Date Utilization in AddMultiGrant Function	Low	2.5	Risk Accepted
HAL-05	Lack of spec on the modules	Informational	0.0	Solved09/15/2024
HAL-06	Open TO-DOs	Informational	0.0	Acknowledged

Findings & Tech Details#

HAL-01Solved

Unhandled Error in AddApprover Call Within ApproveAction Function

High

7.0AO:A/AC:L/AX:L/C:N/I:M/A:L/D:N/Y:N/R:N/S:CAO:A/AC:L/AX:L/C:N/I:M/A:L/D:N/Y:N/R:N/S:C

Description

Recommendation

Remediation Comment

HAL-02Solved

Implement Support for ERC-20 transferFrom Method in ParseEthereumTransaction

Medium

6.3AO:A/AC:L/AX:L/C:N/I:M/A:N/D:N/Y:N/R:N/S:CAO:A/AC:L/AX:L/C:N/I:M/A:N/D:N/Y:N/R:N/S:C

Description

Recommendation

References

zenrocklabs/zenrock/zrchain/x/treasury/types/wallet_ethereum.go#L143-L144

Remediation Comment

HAL-03Solved

Implement PartyThreshold Validation in NewKeyring Function

Low

2.5AO:A/AC:L/AX:L/C:N/I:N/A:L/D:N/Y:N/R:N/S:UAO:A/AC:L/AX:L/C:N/I:N/A:L/D:N/Y:N/R:N/S:U

Description

Recommendation

Remediation Comment

HAL-04Risk Accepted

Implement Expiration Date Utilization in AddMultiGrant Function

Low

2.5AO:A/AC:L/AX:L/C:N/I:L/A:N/D:N/Y:N/R:N/S:UAO:A/AC:L/AX:L/C:N/I:L/A:N/D:N/Y:N/R:N/S:U

Description

Recommendation

Remediation Comment

HAL-05Solved

Lack of spec on the modules

Informational

0.0AO:A/AC:L/AX:L/C:N/I:N/A:N/D:N/Y:N/R:N/S:UAO:A/AC:L/AX:L/C:N/I:N/A:N/D:N/Y:N/R:N/S:U

Description

Recommendation

Remediation Comment

HAL-06Acknowledged

Open TO-DOs

Informational

0.0AO:A/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:N/I:N/D:N/Y:NAO:A/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:N/I:N/D:N/Y:N

Description

Recommendation

Remediation Comment

Disclaimer#

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.