297 lines (238 loc) · 11.3 KB

Contract Security Profiles

This document provides security analysis for each contract in the Stellar Teye platform, including attack surfaces, trust assumptions, and known risks.

📋 Contract Overview

Contract	Primary Function	Security Level	Audit Status	Criticality
vision_records	PHI management	High	✅ Audited	Critical
governor	Protocol governance	High	✅ Audited	Critical
staking	Token staking	Medium	✅ Audited	High
treasury	Fund management	High	✅ Audited	Critical
zk_verifier	ZK proof verification	High	🔄 In Progress	Critical
compliance	HIPAA compliance	High	✅ Audited	Critical
analytics	Data aggregation	Medium	✅ Audited	Medium

👁️ Vision Records Contract

Attack Surface

Patient Registration: Input validation for personal data
Record Creation: File upload and metadata validation
Access Control: Permission verification and consent management
Emergency Access: Override mechanisms and justification logging

Trust Assumptions

Patient Identity: Assumes patients control their private keys
Provider Verification: Assumes provider onboarding is thorough
Encryption: Assumes off-chain encryption is properly implemented
Consent: Assumes consent is informed and voluntary

Invariants

Record Immutability: Once created, records cannot be altered
Access Logging: All access attempts are logged immutably
Consent Enforcement: Access requires explicit patient consent
Data Integrity: Hashes ensure data integrity

Known Risks

Key Compromise: Patient private key theft
Consent Fraud: Forged or coerced consent
Data Leakage: Unauthorized access through vulnerabilities
Replay Attacks: Duplicated transaction submissions

Mitigations

Multi-factor Authentication: Progressive auth requirements
Audit Trail: Complete access logging
Rate Limiting: Prevent brute force attacks
Encryption: End-to-end encryption of PHI

🏛️ Governor Contract

Attack Surface

Proposal Creation: Malicious proposal submission
Voting: Vote manipulation and Sybil attacks
Execution: Code execution vulnerabilities
Delegation: Delegation attack vectors

Trust Assumptions

Token Distribution: Assumes fair initial distribution
Voter Rationality: Assumes voters act in protocol interest
Proposal Quality: Assumes proposals are beneficial
Time Locks: Assumes time delays prevent attacks

Invariants

Quorum Requirements: Minimum participation for validity
Time Locks: Delays prevent rushed decisions
Proposal Limits: Bound proposal parameters
Execution Safety: Only approved proposals execute

Known Risks

Governance Capture: Concentration of voting power
Flash Loan Attacks: Temporary voting power manipulation
Proposal Griefing: Malicious proposal spam
Rug Pull: Malicious protocol changes

Mitigations

Staking Requirements: Minimum stake for voting
Time Delays: Multi-day voting periods
Proposal Thresholds: Minimum stake to propose
Emergency Controls: Admin override capabilities

💰 Staking Contract

Attack Surface

Stake Operations: Deposit/withdrawal vulnerabilities
Reward Calculation: Manipulation of reward formulas
Slashing Conditions: Unfair penalty mechanisms
Unstaking: Timing attacks and front-running

Trust Assumptions

Reward Model: Assumes sustainable reward economics
Price Feeds: Assumes accurate external price data
Validator Behavior: Assumes honest validator participation
Network Stability: Assumes continuous operation

Invariants

Reward Consistency: Rewards follow predictable formulas
Stake Balance: Total staked amount is tracked accurately
Unstaking Delays: Lock periods prevent immediate withdrawal
Slashing Fairness: Penalties are proportionate

Known Risks

Economic Attacks: Manipulation of reward mechanisms
Validator Collusion: Coordinated validator behavior
Price Oracle Manipulation: External data corruption
Liquidity Crises: Mass unstaking events

Mitigations

Reward Caps: Maximum reward limits
Diversification: Multiple validator sources
Price Feed Validation: Oracle redundancy
Gradual Unstaking: Staggered withdrawal periods

🏦 Treasury Contract

Attack Surface

Fund Transfers: Unauthorized withdrawal attempts
Spending Approvals: Malicious spending proposals
Balance Queries: Information leakage
Emergency Withdraw: Abuse of emergency mechanisms

Trust Assumptions

Multi-sig Security: Assumes key holders are trustworthy
Proposal Process: Assumes spending proposals are reviewed
Budget Limits: Assumes spending caps are enforced
Audit Trail: Assumes all transactions are traceable

Invariants

Balance Conservation: Total funds are accounted for
Authorization: All transfers require proper authorization
Spending Limits: Budget caps are enforced
Audit Completeness: All operations are logged

Known Risks

Key Compromise: Multi-sig key theft
Collusion: Multiple authorized parties conspiring
Budget Overrun: Excessive spending approvals
Emergency Abuse: Misuse of emergency provisions

Mitigations

Multi-signature: Multiple key holders required
Time Locks: Delays on large transfers
Budget Controls: Strict spending limits
Regular Audits: Frequent balance reconciliation

🔐 ZK Verifier Contract

Attack Surface

Proof Verification: Invalid proof acceptance
Parameter Updates: Malicious verifier configuration
Proof Generation: Side-channel attacks
Circuit Integrity: Circuit tampering

Trust Assumptions

Circuit Correctness: Assumes ZK circuits are bug-free
Trusted Setup: Assumes setup ceremony was secure
Proof System: Assumes underlying cryptography is sound
Parameter Security: Assumes configuration parameters are safe

Invariants

Proof Validity: Only valid proofs are accepted
Parameter Consistency: Verifier parameters remain stable
Soundness: False proofs cannot be verified
Zero-Knowledge: No information leakage from proofs

Known Risks

Circuit Bugs: Flaws in ZK circuit design
Setup Compromise: Trusted setup corruption
Cryptographic Breakthroughs: Advances in cryptanalysis
Implementation Bugs: Coding errors in verification

Mitigations

Multiple Implementations: Independent verifier implementations
Formal Verification: Mathematical proof of correctness
Regular Audits: Security reviews of circuits
Parameter Validation: Strict configuration checks

📋 Compliance Contract

Attack Surface

Access Logging: Log manipulation or deletion
Retention Policies: Improper data retention
Compliance Verification: Bypassing compliance checks
Audit Trail: Audit log tampering

Trust Assumptions

Regulatory Knowledge: Assumes understanding of HIPAA requirements
Policy Enforcement: Assumes policies are correctly implemented
Audit Integrity: Assumes logs are immutable
Retention Compliance: Assumes data retention is enforced

Invariants

Log Immutability: Audit logs cannot be altered
Access Tracking: All data access is logged
Retention Enforcement: Data is retained per policy
Compliance Validation: Operations meet regulatory requirements

Known Risks

Regulatory Changes: Evolving compliance requirements
Log Corruption: Accidental or malicious log damage
Retention Violations: Improper data handling
Compliance Gaps: Missing regulatory requirements

Mitigations

Immutable Storage: Blockchain-based audit logs
Regular Reviews: Periodic compliance assessments
Policy Updates: Automated regulatory tracking
Redundant Logging: Multiple backup systems

📊 Analytics Contract

Attack Surface

Data Submission: Malicious data injection
Privacy Parameters: Weak privacy configurations
Query Interface: Information leakage through queries
Aggregation Errors: Statistical manipulation

Trust Assumptions

Differential Privacy: Assumes privacy mechanisms are sound
Data Quality: Assumes submitted data is accurate
Statistical Methods: Assumes analysis is mathematically correct
Query Limits: Assumes rate limiting prevents abuse

Invariants

Privacy Preservation: Individual data cannot be reconstructed
Statistical Accuracy: Aggregated results are correct
Query Bounds: Queries cannot extract individual data
Data Freshness: Analytics are updated regularly

Known Risks

Privacy Breaches: Re-identification from aggregated data
Statistical Attacks: Manipulation of analytics results
Data Poisoning: Malicious data submission
Inference Attacks: Extracting information from queries

Mitigations

Differential Privacy: Mathematical privacy guarantees
Query Limits: Restricting query complexity
Data Validation: Input quality checks
Noise Injection: Adding statistical noise

🔍 Security Testing

Test Coverage

Contract	Unit Tests	Integration Tests	Property Tests	Fuzz Tests
vision_records	95%	90%	85%	✅
governor	90%	85%	80%	✅
staking	85%	80%	75%	✅
treasury	95%	90%	85%	✅
zk_verifier	80%	75%	70%	🔄
compliance	90%	85%	80%	✅
analytics	85%	80%	75%	✅

Security Audits

Contract	Auditor	Date	Findings	Status
vision_records	SecureAudit	2024-12-01	3 findings	✅ Fixed
governor	CryptoVerify	2024-11-15	2 findings	✅ Fixed
staking	BlockAudit	2024-10-20	4 findings	✅ Fixed
treasury	SecureAudit	2024-12-10	1 finding	✅ Fixed
compliance	HealthSec	2024-11-30	2 findings	✅ Fixed
analytics	DataGuard	2024-10-15	3 findings	✅ Fixed

📞 Incident Response

Severity Classification

Severity	Definition	Response Time
Critical	System compromise, data breach	1 hour
High	Security vulnerability, service impact	4 hours
Medium	Limited impact, partial functionality	24 hours
Low	Minor issue, no immediate impact	72 hours

Response Procedures

Detection: Automated monitoring and alerts
Assessment: Impact analysis and classification
Containment: Isolate affected systems
Eradication: Remove threat and patch vulnerabilities
Recovery: Restore services and verify integrity
Post-mortem: Document lessons learned

📝 References

Last Updated: 2025-02-25
Next Review: 2025-03-25
Version: 1.0