Skip to content
Quantix Security Labs

Northstar Custody

Institutional wallet infrastructure with MPC signing and policy controls.

An institutional custody platform. Keys are split across MPC signing nodes; every transaction passes a policy engine (whitelists, velocity limits, quorum approvals) before signing. Clients integrate through an API and an approvals console.

Ecosystem
ETHEthereum, Solana
Category
Custody
Languages
Rust, Go, TypeScript
Launched
Feb 2025
90.9AAALow risk

Grade AAA · Low risk

Exceptional posture; residual risk is minimal and well managed.

+2.7 since Nov 2025 · +2.2 since Jul 2026

Quantix Protocol Research · as of 24 Oct 2026 · About this data

Risk Index

How the score is built

Six weighted components, each scored 0–100 where higher means less risk. Points are the component value multiplied by its weight; the gap is what the component costs against a perfect score.
ComponentWeightValuePointsGap
Code Security30%9227.6−2.4
Operational Security20%9418.8−1.2
Governance Risk15%8813.2−1.8
Economic Security15%9013.5−1.5
Infrastructure Resilience10%888.8−1.2
Transparency10%909.0−1.0
Quantix Risk Index100%90.9−9.1
CodeOperationalGovernanceEconomicInfrastructureTransparencyNorthstar Custody, Code: 92Northstar Custody, Operational: 94Northstar Custody, Governance: 88Northstar Custody, Economic: 90Northstar Custody, Infrastructure: 88Northstar Custody, Transparency: 90
Risk Index components: Northstar Custody Code 92, Operational 94, Governance 88, Economic 90, Infrastructure 88, Transparency 90
ComponentNorthstar Custody
Code92
Operational94
Governance88
Economic90
Infrastructure88
Transparency90

Grade scale

  1. AAA90–100
  2. AA85–89.9
  3. A80–84.9
  4. BBB75–79.9
  5. BB70–74.9
  6. B65–69.9
  7. CCC60–64.9
  8. CC55–59.9
  9. C50–54.9
  10. D0–49.9

Score history

12 monthly snapshots

Each point is the Risk Index computed from that month’s component values. Markers below the chart show the events that moved a component.
Northstar Custody Quantix Risk Index by month
PeriodQuantix Risk Index
Nov ’2588.2
Dec ’2588.2
Jan ’2688.6
Feb ’2688.6
Mar ’2688.6
Apr ’2688.6
May ’2688.6
Jun ’2688.7
Jul ’2688.7
Aug ’2690.9
Sep ’2690.9
Oct ’2690.9

  1. 14 Aug 2026

    Research assessment

    Research assessment completed: Infrastructure Security Review

    8 findings (1 high, 4 medium, 2 low, 1 informational). All critical and high findings addressed.

    Read the research assessment
    • Code Security+6
    • Transparency+4

  2. 30 Jun 2026

    Infrastructure

    Solana signing support

    Ed25519 threshold signing added on separate nodes.

    • Infrastructure Resilience+1

  3. 20 Jan 2026

    Operations

    Disaster-recovery exercise

    Full key-recovery ceremony rehearsed.

    • Operational Security+2

Risk factors

What keeps the score from being higher, most severe first.

  • LowOperational SecurityProfile analysis

    Client policy misconfiguration

    Protection depends on clients defining sensible limits and whitelists; overly broad policies weaken it.

  • LowInfrastructure ResilienceProfile analysis

    RPC dependency for transaction building

    Inaccurate chain data from an RPC provider could mislead approvers about what they sign.

Recommendations

Each recommendation raises one component to a target value. The score effect is recomputed with the Risk Index model, holding every other component fixed.

  • Operational Security: 94 → 97

    Policy linting

    Warn clients about wildcard whitelists and missing velocity limits.

    +0.6

    → 91.5

  • Infrastructure Resilience: 88 → 92

    Cross-check RPC data

    Simulate transactions against two independent providers before approval.

    +0.4

    → 91.3

Analysis

Contract, governance and operations

Contract analysis

Source
Verified
Upgradeability
Off-chain services with change approval
Administrative control
Quorum approvals with hardware keys
Enforced delay
None identified
External dependencies
Client policy configuration; Chain RPC providers (Ethereum, Solana)
  • PassMPC threshold. Keys split across isolated signing nodes.
  • PassPolicy engine. Whitelists, velocity limits and quorums enforced before signing.
  • PassBuild provenance. Signed, reproducible builds for signing nodes.
  • PassRecovery. Recovery ceremony rehearsed on a schedule.

Governance exposure

Low

Changes to signing infrastructure require multi-party approval with hardware keys.

Operational resilience

Strong

Disaster-recovery exercises run on a schedule; signing nodes are spread across regions.

Monitoring

Monitoring history

No security events are recorded for Northstar Custody.
Open in Security Monitoring

Research assessment

QX-TSA-2026-011Infrastructure Security ReviewPublished

MPC signing nodes (Rust), policy engine (Go), client API and approvals console (TypeScript), and their deployment configuration, for Ethereum (ECDSA) and Solana (Ed25519) signing. 13,930 nSLOC plus infrastructure configuration.

Review 13 Jul 2026 – 14 Aug 2026 · published 18 Sept 2026

Critical0
High1
Medium4
Low2
Informational1
  • 7 resolved
  • 0 partially resolved
  • 1 acknowledged
  • 0 open
Read the assessmentReport PDF

Continue with

Comparable protocols

Compare side by side

Research

Relevant research

Publications on the risks that matter most for a custody protocol.

Architecture

System components

MPC signing nodes (Rust)
Threshold signing across isolated nodes
Policy engine (Go)
Whitelists, limits and approval quorums
Approvals console (TypeScript)
Human approval workflow with hardware keys
Client API
Transaction requests and webhooks

Turn risk factors into a remediation plan.

A research assessment traces each weakness to code, configuration or process, and verifies the fix before the score moves.

Discuss Your Security RequirementsBack to the Security Explorer