Boost | Shardeum: Ancillaries
Shardeum is an EVM-based, linearly scalable network offering low gas fees forever, while maintaining true decentralization and (hopefully) solid security. Shardeum is a large project and as such, will be split over two concurrent boosts. This boost, called Ancillaries, will cover the Web2 aspects of the project.
Evaluating
Triaged by Immunefi
PoC required
Select the category you'd like to explore
Assets in Scope
Impacts in Scope
Proof of Concept (PoC) Requirements
POCs should be tested against the most recent changes on the /tree/dev github repo.
A PoC, demonstrating the bug's impact, is required for this program and has to comply with the Immunefi PoC Guidelines and Rules.
Whitehat Educational Resources & Technical Info Architecture documents: https://docs.shardeum.org/docs/architecture/high-level-architecture
Is this an upgrade of an existing system? If so, which? And what are the main differences?
No
Where do you suspect there may be bugs? Useful aspects of this question are:
- Which parts of the code are you most concerned about? RPC server, Archive server, and GUI
- What attack vectors are you most concerned about? Highly concerned with the Validator GUI. At the time of writing and likely at the time of launch, the GUI will be homogenous for most of the nodes in the network. A critical bug here can quickly destroy the network as it will instantly impact every node.
- Which part(s) of the system do you want whitehats to attempt to break the most? All of it
- Are there any assumed invariants that you want whitehats to attempt to break? No
What external dependencies are there?
Just the packages listed in the package.json of each repo.
Where might whitehats confuse out-of-scope code to be in-scope?
Since we are doing two concurrent boosts with repositories that interact with each other, the specific boundaries of which vulnerability belongs to which boost may become confusing. A vulnerability may exist in the communication between an archive server and a validator for example. We would like to assure researchers that regardless of the final decision of which boost a particular vulnerability belongs to, the researcher will get paid. We may have final say over where a vuln belongs but the researcher will get their bounty pending the other eligibility factors.
Are there any unusual points about your protocol that may confuse whitehats?
The role of archivers in the Shardeum network is a little different from similar components in other networks. Archivers have no role in a node joining or leaving the network. Archivers have no role in consensus or syncing. They are merely an archive of the history of the network.
Weak subjectivity solutions do not apply to the Shardeum network because long range attacks are not relevant. Shardeum does not have probabilistic finality so there is no risk of a competing chain becoming valid.
What is the test suite setup information?
The simple network test suite: https://github.com/shardeum/simple-network-test Larger test suite setup: https://github.com/shardeum/json-rpc-server/tree/localtest/src/tests/integration
Public Disclosure of Known Issues
Bug reports covering previously-discovered bugs are not eligible for a reward within this program. This includes known issues that the project is aware of but has consciously decided not to “fix”, necessary code changes, or any implemented operational mitigating procedures that can lessen potential risk.
List of Shardeum’s Known Issues.
Previous Audits
Shardeum’s completed audit reports can be found here: Arcadia (draft), HashCloack. Any unfixed vulnerabilities mentioned in these reports are not eligible for a reward.
Out of scope
These impacts are out of scope for this bug bounty program.
All Categories:
- Impacts requiring attacks that the reporter has already exploited themselves, leading to damage
- Impacts caused by attacks requiring access to leaked keys/credentials
- Impacts caused by attacks requiring access to privileged addresses (governance, strategist) except in such cases where the contracts are intended to have no privileged access to functions that make the attack possible
- Impacts relying on attacks involving the depegging of an external stablecoin where the attacker does not directly cause the depegging due to a bug in code
- Mentions of secrets, access tokens, API keys, private keys, etc. in Github will be considered out of scope without proof that they are in-use in production
- Best practice recommendations
- Feature requests
- Impacts on test files and configuration files unless stated otherwise in the bug bounty program
Websites and Apps
- Theoretical impacts without any proof or demonstration
- Impacts involving attacks requiring physical access to the victim device
- Impacts involving attacks requiring access to the local network of the victim
- Reflected plain text injection (e.g. url parameters, path, etc.)
- This does not exclude reflected HTML injection with or without JavaScript
- This does not exclude persistent plain text injection
- Any impacts involving self-XSS
- Captcha bypass using OCR without impact demonstration
- CSRF with no state modifying security impact (e.g. logout CSRF)
- Impacts related to missing HTTP Security Headers (such as X-FRAME-OPTIONS) or cookie security flags (such as “httponly”) without demonstration of impact
- Server-side non-confidential information disclosure, such as IPs, server names, and most stack traces
- Impacts causing only the enumeration or confirmation of the existence of users or tenants
- Impacts caused by vulnerabilities requiring un-prompted, in-app user actions that are not part of the normal app workflows
- Lack of SSL/TLS best practices
- Impacts that only require DDoS
- UX and UI impacts that do not materially disrupt use of the platform
- Impacts primarily caused by browser/plugin defects
- Leakage of non sensitive API keys (e.g. Etherscan, Infura, Alchemy, etc.)
- Any vulnerability exploit requiring browser bugs for exploitation (e.g. CSP bypass)
- SPF/DMARC misconfigured records)
- Missing HTTP Headers without demonstrated impact
- Automated scanner reports without demonstrated impact
- UI/UX best practice recommendations
- Non-future-proof NFT rendering
Prohibited Activities:
- Any testing on mainnet or public testnet deployed code; all testing should be done on local-forks of either public testnet or mainnet
- Any testing with pricing oracles or third-party smart contracts
- Attempting phishing or other social engineering attacks against our employees and/or customers
- Any testing with third-party systems and applications (e.g. browser extensions) as well as websites (e.g. SSO providers, advertising networks)
- Any denial of service attacks that are executed against project assets
- Automated testing of services that generates significant amounts of traffic
- Public disclosure of an unpatched vulnerability in an embargoed bounty