Solutions

Company

Resources

Blog

Contact

Login

    • Advisory

      AI Advisory

      Strategic guidance for secure AI adoption

      Blockchain Architecture Assessment

      Reviewing blockchain designs for security and resilience

      Compliance Readiness

      Aligning controls to evolving regulatory mandates

      Custody and Key Management Assessment

      Securing digital asset custody and key systems

      Risk Assessment

      Clarity on your cybersecurity risk posture

      Technical Due Diligence

      Validating security before third-party commitments

      Technical Training

      Building blockchain and security skills enterprise-wide

    • Assurance

      AI Red Teaming

      Adversarial testing against real-world AI threats

      AI Security Assessment

      Identifying vulnerabilities in AI models and pipelines

      Blockchain Layer 1 Assessment

      Protocol-level security review of L1 networks

      Code Security Audit

      Uncovering vulnerabilities in your source code

      Web Application Penetration Testing

      Exposing exploitable flaws in web applications

      Cloud Infrastructure Penetration Testing

      Finding weaknesses across cloud environments

      Red Team Exercise

      Full-scope adversarial simulation of your defenses

      Smart Contract Assessment

      Code security testing for blockchain-powered applications and systems.

    • 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

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.

AI Advisory

Strategic guidance for secure AI adoption

Blockchain Architecture Assessment

Reviewing blockchain designs for security and resilience

Compliance Readiness

Aligning controls to evolving regulatory mandates

Custody and Key Management Assessment

Securing digital asset custody and key systems

Risk Assessment

Clarity on your cybersecurity risk posture

Technical Due Diligence

Validating security before third-party commitments

Technical Training

Building blockchain and security skills enterprise-wide

AI Red Teaming

Adversarial testing against real-world AI threats

AI Security Assessment

Identifying vulnerabilities in AI models and pipelines

Blockchain Layer 1 Assessment

Protocol-level security review of L1 networks

Code Security Audit

Uncovering vulnerabilities in your source code

Web Application Penetration Testing

Exposing exploitable flaws in web applications

Cloud Infrastructure Penetration Testing

Finding weaknesses across cloud environments

Red Team Exercise

Full-scope adversarial simulation of your defenses

Smart Contract Assessment

Code security testing for blockchain-powered applications and systems.

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

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.

Background

// Security Assessment

04.22.2025 - 05.01.2025

Demos Contracts V1

LucidLabs

Halborn logotext
← Back to Audits

Demos Contracts V1 - LucidLabs

Prepared by:

Halborn Logo

HALBORN

Last Updated 05/15/2025

Date of Engagement: April 22nd, 2025 - May 1st, 2025

Summary

100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed

All findings

4

Critical

0

High

0

Medium

0

Low

0

Informational

4

Table of Contents

  • 1. Summary
  • 2. Introduction
  • 3. Assessment summary
  • 4. Test approach and methodology
  • 5. Risk methodology
  • 6. Scope
  • 7. Assessment summary & findings overview
  • 8. Findings & Tech Details
    1. 8.1 Vesting schedule duration not validated
    2. 8.2 Inaccurate vesting schedule total amount tracking
    3. 8.3 Assumed fixed-point precision in price oracle
    4. 8.4 Redundant logic in tier amount calculation

1. Summary

2. Introduction

LucidLabs engaged our security analysis team to conduct a comprehensive security assessment of their smart contract ecosystem. The primary aim was to meticulously assess the security architecture of the smart contracts to pinpoint vulnerabilities, evaluate existing security protocols, and offer actionable insights to bolster security and operational efficacy of their smart contract framework. Our assessment was strictly confined to the smart contracts provided, ensuring a focused and exhaustive analysis of their security features.

3. Assessment Summary

Our engagement with LucidLabs spanned a 1-week period, during which we dedicated one full-time security engineer equipped with extensive experience in blockchain security, advanced penetration testing capabilities, and profound knowledge of various blockchain protocols. The objectives of this assessment were to:

- Verify the correct functionality of smart contract operations.

- Identify potential security vulnerabilities within the smart contracts.

- Provide recommendations to enhance the security and efficiency of the smart contracts.

4. Test Approach and Methodology

Our testing strategy employed a blend of manual and automated techniques to ensure a thorough evaluation. While manual testing was pivotal for uncovering logical and implementation flaws, automated testing offered broad code coverage and rapid identification of common vulnerabilities. The testing process included:

- A detailed examination of the smart contracts' architecture and intended functionality.

- Comprehensive manual code reviews and walkthroughs.

- Functional and connectivity analysis utilizing tools like Solgraph.

- Customized script-based manual testing and testnet deployment using Foundry.

This executive summary encapsulates the pivotal findings and recommendations from our security assessment of LucidLabs smart contract ecosystem. By addressing the identified issues and implementing the recommended fixes, LucidLabs can significantly boost the security, reliability, and trustworthiness of its smart contract platform.

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_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​

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_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​)​

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 (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

6. SCOPE

REPOSITORY
(a) Repository: lucid-contracts
(b) Assessed Commit ID: 377fd95
(c) Items in scope:
  • Original scope: `https://github.com/LucidLabsFi/demos-contracts-v1/pull/11`
  • Original commit hash: `dcc9f83551331a0961fb808dcfff8b90c3d156f8`
  • Original scope: `https://github.com/LucidLabsFi/demos-contracts-v1/pull/11`
  • Original commit hash: `dcc9f83551331a0961fb808dcfff8b90c3d156f8`
Remediation Commit ID:
  • b86e2a6
  • 9e40a19
Out-of-Scope: New features/implementations after the remediation commit IDs.

7. Assessment Summary & Findings Overview

Critical

0

High

0

Medium

0

Low

0

Informational

4

Security analysisRisk levelRemediation Date
Vesting schedule duration not validatedInformationalSolved - 05/08/2025
Inaccurate vesting schedule total amount trackingInformationalNot Applicable
Assumed fixed-point precision in price oracleInformationalSolved
Redundant logic in tier amount calculationInformationalNot Applicable - 05/05/2025

8. Findings & Tech Details

8.1 Vesting schedule duration not validated

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
AO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:H/I:N/D:N/Y:N (1.5)
Recommendation
Remediation Hash
https://github.com/LucidLabsFi/demos-contracts-v1/commit/b86e2a62cf9d5d8f35f9a5b6f3a97050575ab8f4

8.2 Inaccurate vesting schedule total amount tracking

//

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

8.3 Assumed fixed-point precision in price oracle

//

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 Hash
https://github.com/LucidLabsFi/demos-contracts-v1/commit/9e40a19b94b825b8c2cbcffc66fcba7a1e9990de

8.4 Redundant logic in tier amount calculation

//

Informational

Description
BVSS
AO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:M/I:N/D:N/Y:N (1.0)
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. Summary
  • 2. Introduction
  • 3. Assessment summary
  • 4. Test approach and methodology
  • 5. Risk methodology
  • 6. Scope
  • 7. Assessment summary & findings overview
  • 8. Findings & Tech Details
    1. 8.1 Vesting schedule duration not validated
    2. 8.2 Inaccurate vesting schedule total amount tracking
    3. 8.3 Assumed fixed-point precision in price oracle
    4. 8.4 Redundant logic in tier amount calculation

// Download the full report

Demos Contracts V1

* Use Google Chrome for best results

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