FORESHOCK

Protocols

Request coverage

Every protocol here carries a dated score and the share of it backed by independently verified evidence. Where that share is still thin the assessment says so, is marked Low-signal rather than given a risk band, and holds every unevidenced category at the neutral midpoint instead of assuming it safe. Every score and its reasoning are free to read; the underlying dependency, incident and audit records are part of a plan. Each reading here is fixed at the date beside it. Re-scoring never stops, but a changed reading reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page, which is what a plan is for. How a score is built, how to read one, and how the rubric was tested against real exploits are all in the methodology.

Coverage grows three ways: protocols Foreshock selects at its own discretion, protocols requested through the Request coverage button, and sponsored assessments delivered on an agreed timeline. No path has a guaranteed date except sponsorship.

Scores run from 0, the safest reading, to 100, the riskiest, where 50 is the neutral midpoint every unverified category is held at. Red marks a protocol scoring 50 or above, the band called Elevated: worse than neutral on the evidence gathered. Amber marks one below it, called Moderate. The boundary is fixed. It does not move as coverage grows, and it is not fitted to any backtest result.

Aurora Plus

Aurora Plus official site N/A

Aurora

:

  • Evidence: this reading is based on 100% of the scored weight, verified against named sources. Categories without verified data are held at the neutral midpoint at their full weight, never counted as safe.
  • Validation: the rubric is backtested against past exploits of protocols in the same TVL, age and category bucket. None has been evaluated for this one yet, so the reading rests on its evidence alone.

Published 2026-09-23, unchanged since. Subscribers are told the day it changes.

Why this rating
Audit profile16.0
2 audits on record, most recent audit is over 2 years old; the most recent audit found 5 High and 11 Medium severity issues. This reflects code quality at the time of that audit only, not a claim that these specific issues are still unresolved today.
Code characteristics9.8
Admin key: unknown, upgradeable without a meaningful timelock, open source.
Governance attack surface7.5
Top 10 holders control 69.91%, adjusted figure may still include pooled custody (untagged exchanges, infrastructure contracts) due to tagging coverage limits; exclusions require positive identification.
TVL profile7.0
TVL grew 472% recently, rapid inflow raises attack incentive; TVL is 82% below this protocol's own peak.
Bug bounty3.3
No bug bounty program on record.
Dependency risk3.0
No bridge or oracle dependencies on record. Read contracts/AdminControlled.sol, ITreasury.sol, Treasury.sol and all three versions of JetStaking (V1, V2, V3) in aurora-is-near/aurora-staking-contracts in full: no price oracle, no Chainlink reference, and no bridge/IBC reference anywhere in any of them.
Show the evidenceThe contracts hold and account for AURORA (the staked asset) and whichever ERC-20 reward tokens a governance-approved 'stream' proposes, purely by internal share/weight accounting against fixed schedules, never by reading an external price. AURORA itself arrived on Aurora chain over the Rainbow Bridge from Ethereum, but that is a fact about the token's origin, not about JetStakingV1's custody path: staking deposits AURORA already resident on Aurora chain, so no bridge sits in the contract's own dependency path, per this project's own bridges_relied_on convention (core custody, not an optional/adjacent path). Reward streams can carry third-party ecosystem tokens (Bastion, Trisolaris and Aurigami were named as active stream partners in Aurora's own aurora.plus staking documentation), but each such token is deposited directly by its own stream owner under an admin-approved proposal, not fetched or composed with another protocol's contracts, so it is not recorded as composability_exposure.
Historical incidents2.2
No known own or inherited incidents as of 23 September 2026.
Team factors1.7
Doxxed team, track record: unknown.
Protocol age1.5
1480 days live, past the ~1yr floor; treated the same as any older protocol, not scored progressively safer with more age.
Dependencies (1)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Incident history (0)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Audit history (2)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Common questions about Aurora Plus

Foreshock's independent reading of Aurora Plus is Elevated risk, 52.0 out of 100, as of 23 September 2026. The largest single contributor to that reading is audit profile: 2 audits on record, most recent audit is over 2 years old; the most recent audit found 5 High and 11 Medium severity issues. This reflects code quality at the time of that audit only, not a claim that these specific issues are still unresolved today. All nine scored categories are backed by verified evidence. This published reading is fixed at that date. Re-scoring never stops, and when a reading changes it reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page. Foreshock publishes the reading and the reasoning behind it. It is not a verdict on whether to use this protocol, and it is not investment advice.

Is Aurora Plus safe?
Foreshock does not answer that as a yes or a no. Its independent reading of Aurora Plus is Elevated risk, 52.0 out of 100, as of 23 September 2026, led by audit profile: 2 audits on record, most recent audit is over 2 years old; the most recent audit found 5 High and 11 Medium severity issues. This reflects code quality at the time of that audit only, not a claim that these specific issues are still unresolved today. The score and the reasoning are published in full so the reading can be checked rather than trusted.
Has Aurora Plus been audited?
2 audits on record, most recent audit is over 2 years old; the most recent audit found 5 High and 11 Medium severity issues. This reflects code quality at the time of that audit only, not a claim that these specific issues are still unresolved today. An audit describes the code at the time it was reviewed. It is not a statement that the protocol is safe today.
Who controls Aurora Plus?
Admin key: unknown, upgradeable without a meaningful timelock, open source. Top 10 holders control 69.91%, adjusted figure may still include pooled custody (untagged exchanges, infrastructure contracts) due to tagging coverage limits; exclusions require positive identification.
Has Aurora Plus been exploited before?
No known own or inherited incidents as of 23 September 2026. Foreshock records an incident against a protocol whether it originated there or was inherited from something it depends on.
When was this Aurora Plus assessment last updated?
23 September 2026, and that date does not move on its own. A reading published here is fixed when it is published; re-scoring never stops, and a changed reading reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page. Every category carries the date of the evidence behind it.
Also covered

This assessment follows Foreshock's published methodology. Exact category weights, scoring rules, thresholds, and aggregation logic are proprietary and not shown here. How to interpret this assessment

This reading will change.

This reading is fixed at the date above it, and it stays there. We keep re-scoring Aurora Plus as the evidence moves, a new audit, a changed admin control, an incident, and this page is free to read and always will be. The updated reading is what a plan buys: you are told by email on the day it changes, instead of finding out the next time you happen to look.

Pick one protocol and get a free weekly summary of what changed. Same-day alerts come with a plan.

Monitor this protocolGet told when this changesBrowse every protocol