Chainflip

Findings · 26

1. 1 Step 2 of the handover protocol can be forged Medium
2. 2 Hash function is used as KDF in handover protocol Informational
3. 3 Ceremony participants can send many delayed messages Informational
4. 4 Binding value can be zero Informational
5. 5 The Chainflip back end and smart contracts have vulnerable dependencies Medium
6. 6 Potential panic in KeyId::from_bytes Informational
7. 7 Solidity compiler optimizations can be problematic Undetermined
8. 8 ERC-20 token transfer fails for certain tokens High
9. 9 addGasNative is missing check for nonzero value Informational
10. 10 StakeManager contains unnecessary receive function Informational
11. 11 Missing events for important operations Low
12. 12 Nonstandard ERC-20 tokens get stuck when depositing High
13. 13 transfer can fail due to a fixed gas stipend Informational
14. 14 Low number of block confirmations configured for external blockchains Undetermined
15. 15 Hard to diagnose error from default behavior during signer nomination Informational
16. 16 Failed broadcast nominees are not punished if epoch ends during broadcast Low
17. 17 Nominated broadcast signer does not always report failures in engine Informational
18. 18 Threshold signature liveness protection does not account for previously punished validators Informational
19. 19 A malicious minority can ruin liveness Medium
20. 20 Validators can report nonparticipants in ceremonies Medium
21. 21 Staker funds can be locked via front-running High
22. 22 Unbounded loop execution may result in out-of-gas errors Informational
23. 23 Anyone can cause the Chainflip engine to panic Medium
24. 24 Failed deposits are incorrectly witnessed as having succeeded High
25. 25 Validators are not reimbursed for transactions submitted to external chains Low
26. 26 MEV incentives are unclear and require further investigation Undetermined

Findings extracted from the published report PDF. See the full report below for details and remediation.