Vulnerability concern: delegatecall-based upgrade compliance bypass in RWA tokenization
Plume team — I've been reviewing RWA protocol architectures ahead of your Cantina contest ($75K pool). Wanted to flag a specific class I've seen in similar protocols (Ondo, Centrifuge) that I believe merits a pre-contest review:
The class: When compliance modules are upgraded via delegatecall-based proxy patterns (UUPS/Transparent), a storage layout mismatch between implementation versions can silently disable transfer restrictions — tokens that should be compliance-blocked become freely transferable without any event emission.
Why it's relevant to Plume: Your architecture maps asset custody to on-chain compliance attestations. If the compliance module's storage layout shifts across an upgrade (e.g., a mapping(address => bool) isBlacklisted becomes mapping(address => uint256) restrictions at the same storage slot), existing blacklist entries are reinterpreted as garbage data, effectively clearing all restrictions.
Additionally: Off-chain oracle attestations for asset valuation (especially for real-world assets where price feeds aren't liquid) need atomicity with transfer execution — if the oracle data is fetched in block N and the transfer executes in block N+1, a price shift between blocks can enable arbitrage against stale compliance data.
I run a pre-contest audit triage service specifically for teams entering public bug bounty contests. We surface the top 3–5 vulnerability classes before the contest opens so you can fix them privately — saving both public payout costs and reputational risk.
- Price: $500 for one critical pre-pass, $1,500 for full surface review + PoCs
- Turnaround: 5–7 days
- Recent work: 4 Highs on K2's $135K C4 pool (flash-loan oracle precision, close-factor validation bypass, interest-rate arithmetic overflow)
- Payment: USDC on Base or ETH mainnet
- Portfolio: https://github.com/FROMTHEHEAVENS/audit-triage-portfolio
Whether or not you're interested in the service, the delegatecall compliance class is absolutely worth an internal review before the contest opens. Happy to discuss either way.
— FROMTHEHEAVENS
Vulnerability concern: delegatecall-based upgrade compliance bypass in RWA tokenization
Plume team — I've been reviewing RWA protocol architectures ahead of your Cantina contest ($75K pool). Wanted to flag a specific class I've seen in similar protocols (Ondo, Centrifuge) that I believe merits a pre-contest review:
The class: When compliance modules are upgraded via
delegatecall-based proxy patterns (UUPS/Transparent), a storage layout mismatch between implementation versions can silently disable transfer restrictions — tokens that should be compliance-blocked become freely transferable without any event emission.Why it's relevant to Plume: Your architecture maps asset custody to on-chain compliance attestations. If the compliance module's storage layout shifts across an upgrade (e.g., a
mapping(address => bool) isBlacklistedbecomesmapping(address => uint256) restrictionsat the same storage slot), existing blacklist entries are reinterpreted as garbage data, effectively clearing all restrictions.Additionally: Off-chain oracle attestations for asset valuation (especially for real-world assets where price feeds aren't liquid) need atomicity with transfer execution — if the oracle data is fetched in block N and the transfer executes in block N+1, a price shift between blocks can enable arbitrage against stale compliance data.
I run a pre-contest audit triage service specifically for teams entering public bug bounty contests. We surface the top 3–5 vulnerability classes before the contest opens so you can fix them privately — saving both public payout costs and reputational risk.
Whether or not you're interested in the service, the delegatecall compliance class is absolutely worth an internal review before the contest opens. Happy to discuss either way.
— FROMTHEHEAVENS