Security Audit Report for Puffer's Puffer-Protocol v2

The target of this audit is the private code repository of Puffer-Protocol v2 of Puffer. Puffer-Protocol v2 is a cross-chain restaking and attestation integration that connects Puffer validator operations with Automata-verified TEE sessions. The audit scope covers two main layers of code. The first is the Puffer contract layer, which handles validator registration and provisioning, Guardian enclave key rotation, withdrawal batch processing, Validator Ticket accounting, reward distribution, and L1/L2 reward bridging . The second layer is the Automata TEE workload measurement layer, which verifies TDX/SNP reports, TPM quotes, AK and session-key delegation, base image and workload policies, PCR constraints, and session lifecycle operations consumed by Puffer’s Guardian trust path. Specifically, for code in puffer-contracts-updates-private, the audit focuses on the codes located in the following directories/files: l2-contracts/src mainnet-contracts/src For code in automata-tee-workload-measurement, the audit focuses on the codes located in the following directories/files: src/SessionRegistry.sol src/BaseImageRegistry.sol src/WorkloadRegistry.sol src/TeeVerifier.sol src/SignatureVerifier.sol src/KeyResolver.sol Other files are not within the scope of the audit. Additionally, all dependencies of the Target are considered reliable in terms of both functionality and security, and are therefore not included in the audit scope.

Please refer to the report for the detailed audit scope.

Our audit methodology employs automated vulnerability scans, manual verification, and business logic analysis to uncover potential security issues coupled with gas and code quality optimization recommendations.

In summary, we did not find any critical issues within the audited codebase. However, we have identified some non-critical issues that should be addressed. Additionally, we have put forth recommendations and notes that should be taken into consideration. It is important to note that the scope of our audit was strictly limited to the specific code versions mentioned in the report. Any updates made subsequent to our review would require a re-evaluation.