Halborn Logo
← Back to Audits

Kapital DAO Guild Service - PlayGround Labs

Prepared by:

Halborn Logo

HALBORN

Last Updated 04/26/2024

Date of Engagement by: September 26th, 2022 - October 22nd, 2022

Summary

No Reported Findings to Address

All findings

0

Critical

0

High

0

Medium

0

Low

0

Informational

0

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

Playground Labs engaged Halborn to conduct a security audit on their browser extension, beginning on 2022-09-26 and ending on 2022-10-22. The security assessment was scoped to the Kapital DAO Guild Service browser extension. To begin the test, the Client’s team provided the source code for Halborn to conduct security testing using tools to scan, detect, validate possible vulnerabilities found in the extension and report the findings at the end of the engagement.

The Kapital DAO Guild Service browser extension is a pass-through for the game the user is playing to connect to the backend API. It allows users to authenticate using their Discord credentials and store their JWT on disk, manage their scholarships, forward blockchain requests to the API.

2. AUDIT SUMMARY

The team at Halborn was provided approximately three weeks for the engagement and assigned a full-time security engineer to audit the security of the application. 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 goals of our security audits are to improve the quality of the systems reviewed and to target sufficient remediation to help protect users.

In summary, Halborn identified some security risks that should be addressed by the Playground Labs team.

In more detail, some care should be taken when verifying the origin of Message Events to the extension's Content Script, as to not allow rogue websites to logout or confirm signatures/transactions of the user.

Moreover, it was discovered that the application's API (dev-api.kapital.gg) return custom errors so it discloses technologies used to the end user.

Lastly, it was discovered that the dependencies are not pinned to exact versions and that the CSP of the extension is not as restrictive as it could. Some discoveries were also made that the extension does not check for synthetically generated events, but as there are no attack vectors available currently it was marked as INFORMATIONAL.

To remediate the identified security issues, it is recommended that Playground Labs implements the following high-level remediation actions:

    • Validate each message's origin before processing the message.

    • Return custom error from the application's API as to not disclose the technologies on which the application relies.

    • Pin dependencies to exact versions.

    • Make the Content Security Policy as strict as possible.

3. TEST APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

Halborn performed a combination of manual and automated security testing to balance efficiency, timeliness, practicality, and accuracy regarding the scope of the penetration test. While manual testing is recommended to uncover flaws in logic, process and implementation; automated testing techniques assist enhance coverage of the solution and can quickly identify flaws in it.
The following phases and associated tools were used throughout the term of the audit:

    • Storing assets securely

    • Exposure of any critical information during user interactions with the blockchain and external libraries

    • Any attack that impacts funds, such as draining or manipulating of funds

    • Application Logic Flaws

    • Areas where insufficient validation allows for hostile input

    • Application of cryptography to protect secrets

    • Input Handling

    • Fuzzing of all input parameters

    • Web extension misconfiguration

    • Technology stack-specific vulnerabilities and Code Audit

    • Known vulnerabilities in 3rd party / OSS dependencies.

4. SCOPE

The security assessment was scoped to the following components:

Kapital Guild Service Extension:

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:
EXPLOITABILIY 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 (I:N)
Low (I:L)
Medium (I:M)
High (I:H)
Critical (I: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)+∑mI−max(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,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

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

0

Security analysisRisk levelRemediation Date

8. Findings & Tech Details

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.

// Download the full report

* Use Google Chrome for best results

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

© Halborn 2024. All rights reserved.