Gearbox

Gearbox is a generalized leverage protocol: it allows you to take leverage in one place and then use it across various DeFi protocols and platforms in a composable way. The protocol has two sides to it: passive liquidity providers who earn higher APY by providing liquidity; and active traders, farmers, or even other protocols who can borrow those assets to trade or farm with even x10 leverage.

The core vision is to become a backend composable leverage protocol that all kinds of users have but don’t even need to interact directly with any interface.

For more information about Gearbox, please visit: https://docs.gearbox.finance/

Dev docs are available at https://dev.gearbox.fi/

To see the dApp, please visit: https://app.gearbox.fi/.

Gearbox provides rewards denominated in USD, however payouts are done in USDC. For more details about the payment process, please view the Rewards by Threat Level section further below.

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

Gearbox adheres to category RP - category 3. This Policy determines what information researchers are allowed to make public from their submitted bug reports. For more information about the category selected, please refer to our Responsible Publication page.

Primacy of Impact vs Primacy of Rules

Gearbox adheres to the Primacy of Impact for the following impacts:

• Smart Contract: Critical
• Smart Contract: High

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.

Primacy of Impact vs Primacy of Rules

Gearbox adheres to the Primacy of Rules, which means that the whole bug bounty program is run strictly under the terms and conditions stated within this page.

Proof of Concept (PoC) Requirements

A PoC, demonstrating the bug's impact, is required for this program and has to comply with the Immunefi PoC Guidelines and Rules. A suggestion for a fix is preferred but not compulsory for Low and Medium Smart Contract bug reports. Explanations and statements are not accepted as PoC and code is required.

Known Issue Assurance

Gearbox commits to providing Known Issue Assurance to bug submissions through their program. This means that Gearbox 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.

Public Disclosure of Known Issues

Bug reports covering previously-discovered bugs (listed below) 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.

• https://github.com/Gearbox-protocol/core-v2/issues
• https://github.com/Gearbox-protocol/core-v3/issues
• https://github.com/Gearbox-protocol/integrations-v3/issues
• https://github.com/Gearbox-protocol/oracles-v3/issues
• https://github.com/Gearbox-protocol/bots-v3/issues
• https://github.com/Gearbox-protocol/gearbox-contracts/issues
• https://github.com/Gearbox-protocol/integrations-v2/issues
• https://github.com/Gearbox-protocol/governance/issues
• https://github.com/Gearbox-protocol/security/tree/main/disclosures

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, Gearbox has satisfied the requirements for the Immunefi Standard Badge.

Rewards are distributed according to the impact of the vulnerability based on the Immunefi Vulnerability Severity Classification System V2.3.

Reward Calculation for Critical Level Reports

Critical smart contract vulnerabilities are capped at 10% of economic damage, primarily taking into consideration funds at risk, but also PR and branding aspects, at the discretion of the team. However, there is a minimum reward of USD 20 000

Repeatable Attack Limitations

• If the smart contract where the vulnerability exists can be upgraded or paused, only the initial attack will be considered for a reward. This is because the project can mitigate the risk of further exploitation by upgrading or pausing the component where the vulnerability exists. The reward amount will depend on the severity of the impact and the funds at risk.

• For critical repeatable attacks on smart contracts that cannot be upgraded or paused, the project will consider the cumulative impact of the repeatable attacks for a reward. This is because the project cannot prevent the attacker from repeatedly exploiting the vulnerability until all funds are drained and/or other irreversible damage is done. Therefore, this warrants a reward equivalent to 10% of funds at risk, capped at the maximum critical reward.

Reward Calculation for High Level Reports

• High vulnerabilities concerning theft/permanent freezing of unclaimed yield/royalties are rewarded within a range of USD 5 000 to USD 20 000 depending on the funds at risk, capped at the maximum high reward.

• In the event of temporary freezing, the reward doubles from the full frozen value for every additional 24h that the funds are temporarily frozen, up until a max cap of the high reward. This is because as the duration of the freezing lengthens, the potential for greater damage and subsequent reputational harm intensifies. Thus, by increasing the reward proportionally with the frozen duration, the project ensures stronger incentives for bug disclosure of this nature.

Reward Payment Terms

Payouts are handled by the Gearbox team directly and are denominated in USD. However, payments are done in USDC

The calculation of the net amount rewarded is based on the average price between CoinMarketCap.com and CoinGecko.com at the time the bug report was submitted. No adjustments are made based on liquidity availability.

If you have found a bug that you think is within the security interests of the protocol but is outside of the scope (e.g., the contract is not yet deployed), please notify the team anyway. You can decide ad-hoc together with them in such cases. 1/1 payouts have been done before based on this.

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

Blockchain/DLT & Smart Contract Specific:

• Incorrect data supplied by third party oracles
  • Not to exclude oracle manipulation/flash loan attacks
• Impacts requiring basic economic and governance attacks (e.g. 51% attack)
• Lack of liquidity impacts
• Impacts from Sybil attacks
• Impacts involving centralization risks

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