📦

Audit History

starknet-identity - 3 audits

Version comparison

Capability and finding changes across audited versions, newest first.

VersionDateResultReview itemsChange vs previous
v3 LatestAug 7, 2026, 09:01 AM 1 confirmed0No capability change
v2 Jul 21, 2026, 04:35 AM 1 confirmed0No capability change
v1 Jul 10, 2026, 12:21 AM 1 confirmed0Baseline

Aug 7, 2026, 09:01 AM

The static findings are predominantly false positives caused by Markdown code fences, documentation URLs, examples, and standard configuration syntax. The private-key signer example is a confirmed high-impact secret-handling risk, so publication requires author remediation.

3
Files scanned
352
Lines analyzed
5
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

High
Crypto seed/private key mention
const account = new Account({ provider, address, signer: privateKey });
The example passes a private key into a funded Starknet account signer. This is legitimate signing setup, but mishandling the key can enable unauthorized transactions and loss of funds.
Audited by: codex

Jul 21, 2026, 04:35 AM

Static detections are false positives caused by Markdown code formatting, documentation links, and illustrative configuration. The skill contains expected on-chain transaction examples, but it does not provide adequate safeguards before signed writes are broadcast.

2
Files scanned
330
Lines analyzed
5
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

Medium
On-chain write examples lack transaction safety checks
Registration and metadata examples submit signed on-chain writes without directing implementers to verify the registry address, simulate the call, review fees, or obtain an explicit confirmation before broadcast.
Both examples call account.execute for state-changing transactions and wait for completion. The surrounding guidance does not include address verification, simulation, fee review, or a confirmation step.
Audited by: claude

Jul 10, 2026, 12:21 AM

Most static alerts are Markdown formatting, reference links, example URLs, or standard A2A discovery paths. I confirmed one high-risk issue: the account setup example uses a privateKey signer without explicit key-management guidance. No evidence found of prompt injection, credential exfiltration, hidden downloads, or malicious system reconnaissance.

2
Files scanned
330
Lines analyzed
5
Review items
0
False positives ignored

Confirmed security concerns (1)

High
Crypto seed/private key mention
const account = new Account({ provider, address, signer: privateKey });
Line 54 uses a privateKey value as an account signer. The snippet does not leak the key, but it should include secure key storage guidance and avoid encouraging hardcoded secrets.
Audited by: codex