Demos Contracts V1 Audit | LucidLabs

Summary

100% of all REPORTED Findings have been addressed

About this report

Assessment Type

Assurance Assessment

Date of Engagement

April 22nd, 2025 - May 1st, 2025

Source Code

lucid-contracts

Assessed Commit ID

377fd95

Severity Breakdown

0Risk Accepted
2Not Applicable
2Solved
4All Findings

Critical0
High0
Medium0
Low0
Informational4
- 2Solved
- 2N/A

Summary#

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.

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.

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.

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 ( $m_e$ )	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:

$E = \prod m_e$

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 ( $m_I$ )	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:

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

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 ( $C$ )	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:lucid-contracts

(b) Assessed Commit ID:377fd95d30e74117eb9afc34624a5a2e04f0db33

Additional scope:Original scope: `https://github.com/LucidLabsFi/demos-contracts-v1/pull/11`,Original commit hash: `dcc9f83551331a0961fb808dcfff8b90c3d156f8`

b86e2a62cf9d5d8f35f9a5b6f3a97050575ab8f4 9e40a19b94b825b8c2cbcffc66fcba7a1e9990de

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

Assessment Summary & Findings Overview#

#	Title	Severity	Score	Status
HAL-01	Vesting schedule duration not validated	Informational	1.5	Solved05/08/2025
HAL-02	Inaccurate vesting schedule total amount tracking	Informational	1.5	Not Applicable
HAL-03	Assumed fixed-point precision in price oracle	Informational	1.5	Solved
HAL-04	Redundant logic in tier amount calculation	Informational	1.0	Not Applicable05/05/2025

Findings & Tech Details#

HAL-01Solved

Vesting schedule duration not validated

Informational

1.5AO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:H/I:N/D:N/Y:NAO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:H/I:N/D:N/Y:N

Description

Recommendation

Remediation Comment

Addressed in:

b86e2a62cf9d5d8f35f9a5b6f3a97050575ab8f4

HAL-02Not Applicable

Inaccurate vesting schedule total amount tracking

Informational

1.5AO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:N/I:H/D:N/Y:NAO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:N/I:H/D:N/Y:N

Description

Recommendation

Remediation Comment

HAL-03Solved

Assumed fixed-point precision in price oracle

Informational

1.5AO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:N/I:H/D:N/Y:NAO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:N/I:H/D:N/Y:N

Description

Recommendation

Remediation Comment

Addressed in:

9e40a19b94b825b8c2cbcffc66fcba7a1e9990de

HAL-04Not Applicable

Redundant logic in tier amount calculation

Informational

1.0AO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:M/I:N/D:N/Y:NAO:S/AC:L/AX:L/R:N/S:U/C:N/A:M/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.