Audit Comp | Shardeum: Core II

Shardeum’s up to date codebase can be found at https://github.com/shardeum/.

A note on Shardeum and Shardus Core scope: the default config in the dev branch is in scope. Whitehats are free to configure, patch, and modify their own malicious nodes however they want. However, target nodes must be running the default config in dev. This is to prevent the whitehats from wasting time reporting things we specifically allow in debug mode. The only exception is minNodes and maxNodes settings, which allow different size networks to be created. Certain vulnerabilities may only exist in certain network sizes, and we do not wish to limit Whitehat activity and participation for lack of computing power attempting to run a large local network. However, network-wide attacks that only work under 128 nodes may be rejected or reduced in severity at our discretion. If the researchers can enable debug mode options remotely then that is valid and can be paid out.

Attacks that require the network to still be initializing/bootstrapping are out of scope. Wait until the network mode reaches “processing” + 15 cycles after startup before launching attacks. The rules for staking/join are a little different and the network will not be public during this time. Attacks on a network that is repairing itself (was once in “processing” mode but has since degraded to “safety” or “recovery”) are in scope.

Attacks that require lots of network traffic, large messages, or many connections are at risk of being degraded to insight.

0day vulnerabilities in dependencies will have a max impact of insight. Any other vuln in dependencies is out of scope.

Any report based on unit tests, simulations, or anything not a fully functioning network, will have a max impact of low.

Smart contracts are out of scope

Finally, the more nodes that are required to launch an attack, the more at risk the vuln is of being downgraded. If it takes 33% (for example) of the nodes in the network being malicious to cause damage, then it becomes difficult to distinguish the impact from a brute-force/51% attack, which is completely out of scope.

Mid-Contest Code Updates

In this contest bug fixes may be applied mid-contest. This is required for Shardeum to test changes on their beta networks in preparation for an imminent mainnet launch.

The project is to keep changes private as far as possible. When changes need to be made public, then the changelog will be updated here & in the Shardeum Audit Competition Discord channel. Publicly fixed bugs are invalid and the scope is updated to the new code.

All bug reports before the fix was public will earn a reward. All bug reports after are invalid. If a new bug is introduced by their fix then it is valid for a reward.

Mid-Contest Changelog

Shardeum

• fix: subtracting slashing penalty twice - #158
• Remove unused method getDebugString - #281

Shardus Core

• add cycle to unjoin request - #279
• getStoredCycleByTimestamp() adjusted slightly to return exclusive lower bound and inclusive upper bound - d1a3507
• comment out deprecated and unused "gossip-final-state" handler - #272
• added signature verification to gossipValidJoinRequests handler - #280
• Improved error handling and input validation around join routes - #286
• fix: foreign socket stream unsubscribing archiver on behalf of another socket stream - #264
• fix(api): added account limit to get_account_data_with_queue_hints - #283

POCs should be tested against the most recent changes on the /tree/dev github repo.

Asset Accuracy Assurance

Bugs found on assets incorrectly listed in-scope will be considered valid and be rewarded.

Private Known Issues Reward Policy

Private known issues, meaning known issues that were not publicly disclosed, are valid for a reward equal to that of a bug one severity lower.

Known Issue Assurance

Shardeum commits to providing Known Issue Assurance to bug submissions through their program. This means that Shardeum will either disclose known issues publicly, or at the very least, privately via a self-reported bug submission.

In a potential scenario of a mediation, this allows for a more objective and streamlined process, in order to prove that an issue is known. Otherwise, assuming the bug report is valid, it would result in the report being considered as in-scope, and due a reward.

Primacy of Impact vs Primacy of Rules

Shardeum adheres to the Primacy of Impact for all impacts.

Primacy of Impact means that the impact is prioritized rather than a specific asset. This encourages security researchers to report on all bugs with an in-scope impact, even if the affected assets are not in scope. For more information, please see Best Practices: Primacy of Impact.

When submitting a report on Immunefi’s dashboard, the security researcher should select the Primacy of Impact asset placeholder. If the team behind this project has multiple programs, those other programs are not covered under Primacy of Impact for this program. Instead, check if those other projects have a bug bounty program on Immunefi.

If the project has any testnet and/or mock files, those will not be covered under Primacy of Impact.

All other impacts are considered under the Primacy of Rules, which means that they are bound by the terms and conditions set within this program.

Eligibility Criteria

Security researchers who wish to participate must adhere to the rules of engagement set forth in this program and cannot be:

• On OFACs SDN list
• Official contributor, both past or present
• Employees and/or individuals closely associated with the project
• Security auditors that directly or indirectly participated in the audit review

Responsible Publication

Whitehats may publish their bug reports after they have been fixed & paid, or closed as invalid, with the following exceptions:

• Bug reports in mediation may not be published until mediation has concluded and the bug report is resolved.

Immunefi may publish bug reports submitted to this audit competition and a leaderboard of the participants and their earnings.

Feasibility Limitations

The project may be receiving reports that are valid (the bug and attack vector are real) and cite assets and impacts that are in scope, but there may be obstacles or barriers to executing the attack in the real world. In other words, there is a question about how feasible the attack really is. Conversely, there may also be mitigation measures that projects can take to prevent the impact of the bug, which are not feasible or would require unconventional action and hence, should not be used as reasons for downgrading a bug's severity.

Therefore, Immunefi has developed a set of feasibility limitation standards which by default states what security researchers, as well as projects, can or cannot cite when reviewing a bug report.

Immunefi Standard Badge

By adhering to Immunefi’s best practice recommendations, Shardeum has satisfied the requirements for the Immunefi Standard Badge.