---
title: "MPC Vault System Security Audit Report"
sidebarTitle: "Executive Summary"
description: "Comprehensive security audit findings and recommendations for the MPC vault system"
icon: "clipboard-check"
---
This audit report contains critical security findings that require immediate
attention before production deployment.
**Date:** August 5, 2025
**Auditor:** Claude (Senior Security Auditor)
**Scope:** Comprehensive security assessment of the MPC vault system for wallet operations
**Version:** Sonr v0.10.15
## Executive Summary
This security audit evaluates the Multi-Party Computation (MPC) vault system implemented in Sonr's blockchain platform. The audit covers the current architecture, recent security improvements, wallet operation security, threat analysis, and production readiness assessment.
### Key Findings Overview
- **Critical Issues:** 3 identified
- **High Risk Issues:** 4 identified
- **Medium Risk Issues:** 6 identified
- **Low Risk Issues:** 8 identified
**Overall Security Posture:** MODERATE RISK - Suitable for testnet deployment
with immediate remediation of critical issues required before mainnet
deployment with user funds.
## 1. Current Architecture Analysis
### 1.1 System Components
The vault system consists of four primary components:
**Purpose:** High-level interface for vault operations using WebAssembly enclaves
**Security Features:**
- Input validation framework with regex patterns
- Secure error handling with sanitized messages
- WASM plugin integrity verification via SHA256 hashing
- Restricted host and filesystem access for WASM plugins
**Purpose:** WebAssembly-based secure execution environment for MPC operations
**Security Features:** - Sandboxed execution environment - Rate limiting (60
operations/minute per vault) - Resource constraints (max 100 vaults per
instance) - Ownership-based access control - Configurable IPFS endpoints and
timeouts
**Purpose:** Blockchain state management and vault lifecycle operations
**Security Features:** - Vault state persistence with enclave data separation
- Integration with DID-based authentication - Service registration
verification
**Purpose:** Multi-party computation cryptographic operations
**Security Features:**
- AES-GCM encryption for data at rest
- ECDSA signing with SHA3-256 hashing
- Key derivation and rotation capabilities
## 2. Security Fixes Analysis
### 2.1 Recently Implemented Security Improvements
Based on code analysis and git history, the following security enhancements have been implemented:
✅ **EFFECTIVE**
- Restricted allowed hosts to local IPFS endpoints only
- Limited file system access to `/tmp/vault-wasm` directory
- Well-implemented defense against WASM plugin abuse
✅ **EFFECTIVE** - Vault ID validation with alphanumeric constraints - CID
validation with Base58 format checking - Password validation with UTF-8 and
size constraints - Comprehensive validation prevents injection attacks
✅ **EFFECTIVE** - SecureError type with public/internal error separation -
Structured error codes prevent information leakage - Prevents sensitive
information disclosure
✅ **EFFECTIVE** - 60 ops/minute per vault, max 100 vaults per instance -
Protection against resource exhaustion attacks - Well-implemented DoS
protection
⚠️ **PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE** - Optional SHA256 hash verification - Defaults to
empty hash (backward compatibility) - Good foundation but needs enforcement in
production
⚠️ **NEEDS IMPROVEMENT**
- Owner-based access with pseudo-authentication
- Uses vault ID as owner ID (placeholder implementation)
- Insufficient for production use
## 3. Wallet Operation Security Assessment
- **Strength:** Uses secure MPC protocol for key generation
- **Weakness:** No entropy source verification
- **Risk Level:** Medium
- **CVSS Score:** 5.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N)
- **Strength:** Proper ECDSA implementation with SHA3-256 - **Weakness:**
Missing signature malleability protection - **Risk Level:** Medium - **CVSS
Score:** 4.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N)
- **Strength:** Standard ECDSA verification process - **Weakness:** No
timestamp validation for replay protection - **Risk Level:** Medium - **CVSS
Score:** 5.4 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N)
- **Strength:** MPC refresh protocol for key rotation - **Weakness:** No
automated rotation enforcement - **Risk Level:** Low - **CVSS Score:** 3.7
(AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L)
- **Strength:** AES-GCM encryption for data at rest
- **Weakness:** No integrity verification after retrieval
- **Risk Level:** High
- **CVSS Score:** 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N)
## 4. Threat Analysis by Risk Level
### 4.1 CRITICAL Vulnerabilities (Immediate Action Required)
These vulnerabilities require immediate remediation before any production
deployment.
- **Location:** `cmd/vault/main.go:647-676`
- **Issue:** Pseudo-authentication using vault ID as owner ID
- **Impact:** Complete vault takeover by any user knowing vault ID
- **CVSS Score:** 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)
- **Remediation:** Implement proper JWT/OAuth2 authentication with cryptographic proofs
- **Location:** `internal/vault/vault.go:138` - **Issue:** WASM hash
verification disabled by default (empty ExpectedSHA256) - **Impact:**
Malicious WASM plugin execution - **CVSS Score:** 9.1
(AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N) - **Remediation:** Enforce mandatory
WASM integrity checks in production
- **Location:** `x/dwn/keeper/keeper.go:404`
- **Issue:** Default password generation based on predictable values
- **Impact:** Vault encryption key compromise
- **CVSS Score:** 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)
- **Remediation:** Implement secure password derivation or user-provided passwords
### 4.2 HIGH Risk Vulnerabilities
- **Location:** `crypto/mpc/enclave.go:51-68`
- **Issue:** No HMAC or authenticated encryption verification after IPFS retrieval
- **Impact:** Data tampering attacks on stored vault data
- **CVSS Score:** 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N)
- **Location:** `crypto/mpc/enclave.go:111-121` - **Issue:** ECDSA signatures
vulnerable to malleability attacks - **Impact:** Transaction replay with
modified signatures - **CVSS Score:** 7.4
(AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N)
- **Location:** `cmd/vault/main.go:321-392` - **Issue:** Direct CID usage
without additional validation - **Impact:** IPFS injection attacks or resource
exhaustion - **CVSS Score:** 7.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)
- **Location:** `cmd/vault/main.go:505-568`
- **Issue:** Inadequate synchronization for concurrent vault operations
- **Impact:** Data corruption or inconsistent vault state
- **CVSS Score:** 6.8 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)
### 4.3 MEDIUM Risk Vulnerabilities
- **Location:** `crypto/mpc/enclave.go:78`
- **CVSS Score:** 5.9 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N)
- **Location:** Various signing functions - **CVSS Score:** 5.4
(AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N)
- **Location:** Throughout codebase - **CVSS Score:** 4.3
(AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L)
- **Location:** `cmd/vault/main.go:986-988` - **CVSS Score:** 4.2
(AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N)
- **Location:** `cmd/vault/main.go:947-954` - **CVSS Score:** 5.8
(AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N)
- **Location:** `cmd/vault/main.go:976-983`
- **CVSS Score:** 4.9 (AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L)
### 4.4 LOW Risk Issues
- LOW-001: Predictable Enclave ID Generation - LOW-002: Missing Rate Limit
Bypass Protection - LOW-003: Insufficient Logging for Security Events -
LOW-004: No Vault Backup/Recovery Mechanism - LOW-005: Missing Health Check
Attestation Validation - LOW-006: Hardcoded Configuration Values - LOW-007: No
Circuit Breaker for IPFS Operations - LOW-008: Missing Input Length Validation
Edge Cases
## 5. Production Readiness Assessment
⚠️ **CONDITIONAL APPROVAL**
Suitable with immediate critical fixes:
- Fix CRITICAL-001 (Authentication)
- Fix CRITICAL-002 (WASM Integrity)
- Fix CRITICAL-003 (Default Passwords)
**Timeline:** 2-3 weeks with dedicated security effort
❌ **NOT RECOMMENDED** Requires comprehensive security hardening: - All
CRITICAL and HIGH issues resolved - External security audit by certified firm
- Bug bounty program - Comprehensive monitoring and alerting **Timeline:** 3-4
months minimum
❌ **NOT RECOMMENDED**
Requires enterprise-grade security controls:
- SOC 2 Type II compliance
- Multi-signature authorization workflows
- Hardware Security Module (HSM) integration
- Advanced threat detection and response
**Timeline:** 6-8 months minimum
## 6. Remediation Recommendations
### 6.1 Immediate Actions (0-2 weeks)
- Replace pseudo-authentication with JWT/OAuth2
- Add cryptographic proof of vault ownership
- Implement session management with timeout
- Remove backward compatibility for empty hashes - Implement automatic hash
verification - Add WASM signature verification
- Implement secure key derivation functions (PBKDF2/Argon2)
- Add user-provided password support
- Implement password strength requirements
### 6.2 Short-term Actions (2-8 weeks)
- Implement HMAC for IPFS stored data
- Add checksum verification after retrieval
- Implement authenticated encryption (AES-GCM with additional data)
- Use deterministic ECDSA (RFC 6979) - Add signature canonicalization -
Implement proper nonce generation
- Complete WebAuthn assertion verification
- Add biometric authentication support
- Implement proper challenge-response flow
## 7. Implementation Timeline
- Authentication system implementation
- WASM integrity enforcement
- Password security enhancement
- Basic monitoring setup
- Data integrity verification - Signature security improvements - Input
validation enhancements - Concurrent access protection
- Comprehensive monitoring implementation - Advanced security controls -
Performance optimization - External security audit preparation
- Compliance framework implementation
- Advanced threat protection
- HSM integration
- Comprehensive testing and validation
## 8. Compliance and Standards Assessment
### 8.1 Current Compliance Status
❌ Multiple violations identified
❌ Partial implementation
❌ Insufficient security controls
❌ Not compliant
### 8.2 Recommended Standards Implementation
1. Implement OWASP secure coding practices
2. Adopt NIST cybersecurity framework controls
3. Prepare for SOC 2 Type II audit
4. Consider ISO 27001 certification for enterprise use
## 9. Conclusion
The Sonr MPC vault system demonstrates good architectural principles and has implemented several important security improvements. However, critical vulnerabilities prevent immediate production deployment with user funds.
The system is suitable for testnet deployment with immediate remediation of
the three critical issues identified. A comprehensive security hardening
effort over 3-4 months is required before mainnet deployment with user funds
is recommended.
**Immediate Priority:** Address the three critical vulnerabilities before any
production deployment.
**Recommendation:** Engage a certified security firm for external audit before mainnet launch.
---
**Report Prepared By:** Claude (Senior Security Auditor)
**Date:** August 5, 2025
**Classification:** Confidential - Internal Use Only