Boost | Immunefi Arbitration

The smart contract Arbitration Protocol is a set of on-chain workflows designed to resolve disputes between Projects and Security Researchers over bug report validity and appropriate reward. The expected output is a final binding decision on a report, followed by enforcement (as required) of the bounty reward from the Project to the Security Researcher. The first level of enforcement should occur through leveraging Immunefi’s Vaults.

The Vaults are Gnosis Safe wallets, and the system includes a set of components which interact with the Vaults through a module and a guard. The purpose of the components is to scope the access of the different roles and players in the arbitration protocol, as well as their capabilities of rewarding, arbitration calling, enforcing, among others.

For more information about Immunefi Arbitration, please visit https://medium.com/immunefi/introducing-immunefis-arbitration-boost-32858a1fe7e3

Immunefi Arbitration provides rewards in USDC, denominated in USD.

The following reward terms are a summary, for the full details read our Immunefi Arbitration Boost Reward Distribution Terms.

A baseline reward pool of $30,000 USD will be distributed among participants, even if no valid bugs are found. For this boost, duplicates and private known issues are valid for a reward. Rewards are distributed according to the impact of the vulnerability based on the Immunefi Vulnerability Severity Classification System V2.3.

Reward Payment Terms

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

Rewards will be distributed all at once based on Immunefi’s distribution formula after the event has concluded and the final bug reports have been resolved.

Invoicing Information

Available on request.

Immunefi Arbitration’s up to date codebase can be found at https://github.com/immunefi-team/vaults

Whitehat Educational Resources & Technical Info

Please provide educational resources, for example:

1. Arbitration Protocol Overview
2. Arbitration Protocol Diagrams
3. Video Overview
4. Technical Walkthrough

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?
• What attack vectors are you most concerned about?
• Which part(s) of the system do you want whitehats to attempt to break the most?
• Are there any assumed invariants that you want whitehats to attempt to break?

Everything that touches on the ImmunefiModule is sensitive. In theory, a Safe module gives it full power over whatever is inside the Vault, so the module code and everything around it is critical. Users should not be able to trick the protocol to drain the Vaults.

We also assume it is really difficult or costly to take money from a Vault when it is on arbitration.

What ERC20 / ERC721 / ERC777 / ERC1155 token standards are supported? Which are not?

• For example, rebasing tokens and Fee-On-Transfer tokens.

In theory, all ERC20 tokens can be used as payment tokens for whitehats. Arbitration fee should use USDC or some other token that the owner decides to be the new fee token.

What emergency actions may you want to use as a reason to invalidate or downgrade an otherwise valid bug report?

• For each emergency action, how does it work, how would it affect a bug report, and when would you utilize it?

If this is listed in your documentation, then a link to that part of the documentation would suffice.

• Note that normally, not all emergency actions are accepted as a valid reason to invalidate or downgrade an otherwise valid bug report, such as chain rollbacks.

It is assumed that all timelocked actions can be stopped through freezing of vaults, or through the emergency system.

What monitoring systems may you want to use as a reason to invalidate or downgrade an otherwise valid bug report?

• Note that normally, monitoring systems are only a valid reason to downgrade a bug if there is 100% certainty that the bug would be detected and fully prevented. Immunefi’s full policy and reasoning can be read here.

Nothing.

What Roles are there, and what capacities do they have?

The roles are detailed in the documentation, along with their privileges.

Which Roles are trusted roles and what privileges do they hold?

The roles are detailed in the documentation, along with their privileges.

Are there trusted roles for which you would consider any bugs invalid, even if the roles are not intended to have that capacity?

Note that normally, bugs requiring access to privileged addresses are valid in such cases where the privileged addresses are not intended to have access to functions that make the attack possible.

Any malicious behavior coming from contract owners, enforcers or arbitrators using their scoped powers to affect the protocol is considered invalid.

What external dependencies are there?

OpenZeppelin Contracts, OpenZeppelin Upgradeable Contracts.

Where might whitehats confuse out-of-scope code to be in-scope?

All the code is in scope.

Are there any unusual points about your protocol that may confuse whitehats?

Vaults are assumed to have an ImmunefiModule setup and an ImmunefiGuard, and no other modules should be added to the Vault. The code is assuming all of this.

What is the test suite setup information?

• If this is already provided in Github, then linking that resource is enough.

https://github.com/immunefi-team/vaults/blob/main/README.md#testing

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.

• It is possible for a project to immediately withdraw funds from a Vault when it is not in Arbitration. They can do this by bypassing the withdrawal timelock and impersonating a whitehat, issuing a reward to themselves through the RewardSystem component and potentially paying a fee for it. This is known behavior, and it was previously flagged in the internal audit. The project could also decide to do this as a frontrunning transaction to an arbitration call (flagged in this audit).
• It is possible to queue reward transactions for an amount of funds that actually doesn’t exist in a vault.The transaction will revert once the reward is executed, if the vault doesn’t hold enough funds covering it. Same goes for other transactions such as withdrawals. Flagged in the internal audit.
• It is technically possible to call arbitration and grief a reward transaction execution, though it does require the grifter to pay a heavy fee. Flagged in the internal audit.
• We acknowledge that reward payments are not necessarily accounting for fee-on-transfer tokens. Flagged in the internal audit.
• It is technically possible to withdraw funds that are critical for arbitration, if for some reason the off-chain mechanisms don’t have enough time to act and freeze a vault during a critical withdrawal request. We assume that the cooldown time is enough for the off-chain actors to action. Flagged in this audit.

Previous Audits

Immunefi Arbitration’s completed audit reports can be found at [https://github.com/immunefi-team/vaults/tree/main/audits]. Any unfixed vulnerabilities mentioned in these reports are not eligible for a reward.

Asset In Scope Policies

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 25% partial reward.

Known Issue Assurance

Immunefi Arbitration commits to providing Known Issue Assurance to bug submissions through their program. This means that [Immunefi Arbitration] 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]

Immunefi Arbitration adheres to the Primacy of Impact for the following impacts:

• Smart Contract / Critical
• Smart Contract / High
• Smart Contract / Medium

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.

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.

KYC Requirement

Immunefi Arbitration will be requesting KYC information in order to pay for successful bug submissions.

For all submissions, Immunefi may request the researcher's country of residence before releasing payment. Some countries are restricted when it comes to payments. This bug bounty program is only open to individuals who reside outside of the countries that are restricted by OFAC and by UNSC resolutions.

For critical submissions, Immunefi will request government identification. KYC verification will be completed by an external service before payment can be released.

KYC information is only required on confirmation of the validity of a bug report.

The following information will be required:

• Full name
• Date of birth
• Proof of address (either a redacted bank statement with address or a recent utility bill)
• Copy of Passport or other Government issued ID

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 boosted bug bounty 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, Immunefi Arbitration has satisfied the requirements for the Immunefi Standard Badge.

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

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

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