Solana Vulnerability Scanner
Trail of BitsOfficialPublished by Trail of Bits
- Skill
- Review and audit
- Security
- CC-BY-SA-4.0
- No issues found
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
The Solana Vulnerability Scanner provides a structured framework for auditing Solana smart contracts. It focuses on six critical security patterns, including cross-program invocation (CPI) security, PDA validation, ownership checks, signer verification, sysvar integrity, and instruction introspection. The skill mandates a comprehensive reporting format that requires a coverage table for all six patterns, ensuring that every aspect of the program's security posture is explicitly evaluated, documented, and verified.
What it does
- Scans native Rust and Anchor-based Solana programs for 6 critical security vulnerabilities.
- Enforces a mandatory coverage table to ensure all security patterns are addressed.
- Provides specific remediation strategies and code examples for identified vulnerabilities.
- Guides users through a multi-step audit workflow covering CPI, PDA, and account validation.
- Integrates with standard Solana testing practices and linting tools.
- Requires explicit justification for any pattern marked as not applicable.
When to use it
- During the pre-launch security assessment of a Solana protocol.
- When reviewing cross-program invocation logic for potential security flaws.
- When validating program-derived address (PDA) implementations.
- During routine audits of Solana or Anchor program codebases.
- When verifying that account validation patterns are correctly implemented.
Advantages
- Prevents incomplete audits by requiring a full coverage table for all 6 patterns.
- Standardizes the reporting of security findings across different projects.
- Provides actionable, code-level recommendations for fixing identified issues.
- Reduces human error by enforcing a structured, step-by-step auditing workflow.
- Differentiates between 'clear' code and 'n/a' scenarios to ensure thoroughness.
Usage examples
- “Audit my Solana program for security vulnerabilities.”
- The agent will scan the codebase, generate a 6-row coverage table, and provide detailed findings or 'clear' status for each of the 6 critical vulnerability patterns.
- “Check my Anchor program's PDA implementation for security issues.”
- The agent will review the PDA derivation logic, verify the use of canonical bumps, and report whether the implementation is secure or requires remediation.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/trailofbits/solana-vulnerability-scanner/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip solana-vulnerability-scanner.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by Trail of Bits
Solana Vulnerability Scanner
1. Purpose
Systematically scan Solana programs (native and Anchor framework) for platform-specific security vulnerabilities related to cross-program invocations, account validation, and program-derived addresses. This skill encodes 6 critical vulnerability patterns unique to Solana's account model.
2. When to Use This Skill
Auditing Solana programs (native Rust or Anchor)
Reviewing cross-program invocation (CPI) logic
Validating program-derived address (PDA) implementations
Pre-launch security assessment of Solana protocols
Reviewing account validation patterns
Assessing instruction introspection logic
3. Platform Detection
File Extensions & Indicators
Rust files:
.rs
Language/Framework Markers
// Native Solana program indicators
use solana_program::{
account_info::AccountInfo,
entrypoint,
entrypoint::ProgramResult,
pubkey::Pubkey,
program::invoke,
program::invoke_signed,
};
entrypoint!(process_instruction);
// Anchor framework indicators
use anchor_lang::prelude::*;
#[program]
pub mod my_program {
pub fn initialize(ctx: Context<Initialize>) -> Result<()> {
// Program logic
}
}
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct Initialize<'info> {
#[account(mut)]
pub authority: Signer<'info>,
}
// Common patterns
AccountInfo, Pubkey
invoke(), invoke_signed()
Signer<'info>, Account<'info>
#[account(...)] with constraints
seeds, bumpProject Structure
programs/*/src/lib.rs- Program implementationAnchor.toml- Anchor configurationCargo.tomlwithsolana-programoranchor-langtests/- Program tests
Tool Support
Trail of Bits Solana Lints: Rust linters for Solana
Installation: Add to Cargo.toml
anchor test: Built-in testing framework
Solana Test Validator: Local testing environment
4. How This Skill Works
When invoked, I will:
Search your codebase for Solana/Anchor programs
Analyze each program for the 6 vulnerability patterns
Report findings with file references and severity, above them a coverage table carrying a verdict for every pattern
Provide fixes for each identified issue
Check account validation and CPI security
5. Example Output
6. Vulnerability Patterns (6 Patterns)
I check for 6 critical vulnerability patterns unique to Solana. For detailed detection patterns, code examples, mitigations, and testing strategies, see VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md.
Pattern Summary:
Arbitrary CPI ⚠️ CRITICAL - User-controlled program IDs in CPI calls
Improper PDA Validation ⚠️ CRITICAL - Using create_program_address without canonical bump
Missing Ownership Check ⚠️ HIGH - Deserializing accounts without owner validation
Missing Signer Check ⚠️ CRITICAL - Authority operations without is_signer check
Sysvar Account Check ⚠️ HIGH - Spoofed sysvar accounts (pre-Solana 1.8.1)
Improper Instruction Introspection ⚠️ MEDIUM - Absolute indexes allowing reuse
For complete vulnerability patterns with code examples, see VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md.
7. Scanning Workflow
Step 1: Platform Identification
Verify Solana program (native or Anchor)
Check Solana version (1.8.1+ for sysvar security)
Locate program source (
programs/*/src/lib.rs)Identify framework (native vs Anchor)
Step 2: CPI Security Review
# Find all CPI calls
rg "invoke\(|invoke_signed\(" programs/
# Check for program ID validation before each
# Should see program ID checks immediately before invokeFor each CPI:
[ ] Program ID validated before invocation
[ ] Cannot pass user-controlled program accounts
[ ] Anchor: Uses
Program<'info, T>type
Step 3: PDA Validation Check
# Find PDA usage
rg "find_program_address|create_program_address" programs/
rg "seeds.*bump" programs/
# Anchor: Check for seeds constraints
rg "#\[account.*seeds" programs/For each PDA:
[ ] Uses
find_program_address()or Anchorseedsconstraint[ ] Bump seed stored and reused
[ ] Not using user-provided bump
Step 4: Account Validation Sweep
# Find account deserialization
rg "try_from_slice|try_deserialize" programs/
# Should see owner checks before deserialization
rg "\.owner\s*==|\.owner\s*!=" programs/For each account used:
[ ] Owner validated before deserialization
[ ] Signer check for authority accounts
[ ] Anchor: Uses
Account<'info, T>andSigner<'info>
Step 5: Instruction Introspection Review
# Find instruction introspection usage
rg "load_instruction_at|load_current_index|get_instruction_relative" programs/
# Check for checked versions
rg "load_instruction_at_checked|load_current_index_checked" programs/[ ] Using checked functions (Solana 1.8.1+)
[ ] Using relative indexing
[ ] Proper correlation validation
Step 6: Trail of Bits Solana Lints
# Add to Cargo.toml
[dependencies]
solana-program = "1.17" # Use latest version
[lints.clippy]
# Enable Solana-specific lints
# (Trail of Bits solana-lints if available)8. Reporting Format
Coverage Table
Report on every pattern in §6, whether or not it turned anything up. Emit this table above the findings, with all 6 rows present:
| # | Pattern | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arbitrary CPI | n/a | this program makes no cross-program invocations |
| 2 | Improper PDA Validation | ||
| 3 | Missing Ownership Check | ||
| 4 | Missing Signer Check | ||
| 5 | Sysvar Account Check | ||
| 6 | Improper Instruction Introspection |
Each verdict is one of:
found— citefile:lineand write the finding up in full below.clear— the pattern applies to this program and the program handles it. Name the constraint, account type, or check you searched for, so a reader can repeat the search.n/a— the pattern cannot apply here. Give the reason in one clause ("this program makes no CPI calls"). Not having looked is notn/a. Pattern 5 is version-scoped (pre-Solana 1.8.1): cite thesolana-programversion the program targets rather than dropping the row, since "targets 1.17, fixed upstream" and "did not look" are otherwise the same answer.
A table with fewer than 6 rows is an incomplete scan and must be reported as one. A row whose Verdict cell is empty is incomplete in the same way: row 1 above is filled in to show the shape, and every row is filled in the same way before the report is done. Six clear verdicts is a
result a reader can act on. A report that covers two patterns and says nothing about the other four reads
exactly like a clean program, and that is the failure this table exists to prevent.
Finding Template
## [CRITICAL] Arbitrary CPI - Unchecked Program ID
**Location**: `programs/vault/src/lib.rs:145-160` (withdraw function)
**Description**:
The `withdraw` function performs a CPI to transfer SPL tokens without validating that the provided `token_program` account is actually the SPL Token program. An attacker can provide a malicious program that appears to perform a transfer but actually steals tokens or performs unauthorized actions.
**Vulnerable Code**:
```rust
// lib.rs, line 145
pub fn withdraw(ctx: Context<Withdraw>, amount: u64) -> Result<()> {
let token_program = &ctx.accounts.token_program;
// WRONG: No validation of token_program.key()!
invoke(
&spl_token::instruction::transfer(...),
&[
ctx.accounts.vault.to_account_info(),
ctx.accounts.destination.to_account_info(),
ctx.accounts.authority.to_account_info(),
token_program.to_account_info(), // UNVALIDATED
],
)?;
Ok(())
}
```
**Attack Scenario**:
1. Attacker deploys malicious "token program" that logs transfer instruction but doesn't execute it
2. Attacker calls withdraw() providing malicious program as token_program
3. Vault's authority signs the transaction
4. Malicious program receives CPI with vault's signature
5. Malicious program can now impersonate vault and drain real tokens
**Recommendation**:
Use Anchor's `Program<'info, Token>` type:
```rust
use anchor_spl::token::{Token, Transfer};
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct Withdraw<'info> {
#[account(mut)]
pub vault: Account<'info, TokenAccount>,
#[account(mut)]
pub destination: Account<'info, TokenAccount>,
pub authority: Signer<'info>,
pub token_program: Program<'info, Token>, // Validates program ID automatically
}
pub fn withdraw(ctx: Context<Withdraw>, amount: u64) -> Result<()> {
let cpi_accounts = Transfer {
from: ctx.accounts.vault.to_account_info(),
to: ctx.accounts.destination.to_account_info(),
authority: ctx.accounts.authority.to_account_info(),
};
let cpi_ctx = CpiContext::new(
ctx.accounts.token_program.to_account_info(),
cpi_accounts,
);
anchor_spl::token::transfer(cpi_ctx, amount)?;
Ok(())
}
```
**References**:
- building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/solana/arbitrary_cpi
- Trail of Bits lint: `unchecked-cpi-program-id`9. Priority Guidelines
Critical (Immediate Fix Required)
Arbitrary CPI (attacker-controlled program execution)
Improper PDA validation (account spoofing)
Missing signer check (unauthorized access)
High (Fix Before Launch)
Missing ownership check (fake account data)
Sysvar account check (authentication bypass, pre-1.8.1)
Medium (Address in Audit)
Improper instruction introspection (logic bypass)
10. Testing Recommendations
Unit Tests
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
#[should_panic]
fn test_rejects_wrong_program_id() {
// Provide wrong program ID, should fail
}
#[test]
#[should_panic]
fn test_rejects_non_canonical_pda() {
// Provide non-canonical bump, should fail
}
#[test]
#[should_panic]
fn test_requires_signer() {
// Call without signature, should fail
}
}Integration Tests (Anchor)
import * as anchor from "@coral-xyz/anchor";
describe("security tests", () => {
it("rejects arbitrary CPI", async () => {
const fakeTokenProgram = anchor.web3.Keypair.generate();
try {
await program.methods
.withdraw(amount)
.accounts({
tokenProgram: fakeTokenProgram.publicKey, // Wrong program
})
.rpc();
assert.fail("Should have rejected fake program");
} catch (err) {
// Expected to fail
}
});
});Solana Test Validator
# Run local validator for testing
solana-test-validator
# Deploy and test program
anchor test11. Additional Resources
Building Secure Contracts:
building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/solana/Trail of Bits Solana Lints: https://github.com/trailofbits/solana-lints
Anchor Documentation: https://www.anchor-lang.com/
Solana Program Library: https://github.com/solana-labs/solana-program-library
Solana Cookbook: https://solanacookbook.com/
12. Quick Reference Checklist
Before completing Solana program audit:
CPI Security (CRITICAL):
[ ] ALL CPI calls validate program ID before
invoke()[ ] Cannot use user-provided program accounts
[ ] Anchor: Uses
Program<'info, T>type
PDA Security (CRITICAL):
[ ] PDAs use
find_program_address()or Anchorseedsconstraint[ ] Bump seed stored and reused (not user-provided)
[ ] PDA accounts validated against canonical address
Account Validation (HIGH):
[ ] ALL accounts check owner before deserialization
[ ] Native: Validates
account.owner == expected_program_id[ ] Anchor: Uses
Account<'info, T>type
Signer Validation (CRITICAL):
[ ] ALL authority accounts check
is_signer[ ] Native: Validates
account.is_signer == true[ ] Anchor: Uses
Signer<'info>type
Sysvar Security (HIGH):
[ ] Using Solana 1.8.1+
[ ] Using checked functions:
load_instruction_at_checked()[ ] Sysvar addresses validated
Instruction Introspection (MEDIUM):
[ ] Using relative indexes for correlation
[ ] Proper validation between related instructions
[ ] Cannot reuse same instruction across multiple calls
Testing:
[ ] Unit tests cover all account validation
[ ] Integration tests with malicious inputs
[ ] Local validator testing completed
[ ] Trail of Bits lints enabled and passing
[ ] Coverage table emitted with all 6 rows, each carrying a verdict of
found,clearorn/awith a reason
13. Rationalizations to Reject
"The program is small, so most patterns obviously don't apply." Obvious to whom? An
n/acosts one clause and makes the judgment reviewable. Silence records nothing, and a reader cannot tell it apart from not having checked."The Trail of Bits lints pass, so the program is clean." The lints cover a subset of these 6 patterns. A clean lint run is one row of evidence, not a verdict on the patterns it never examined. Say which patterns it covered.
"I checked the patterns that matter for this program." Deciding which patterns matter is the scan, not a precondition for starting it. Rank by severity after the table is complete, not by leaving rows out.
"No findings, so there is nothing to report." A zero-finding scan still emits the full coverage table. That table is the deliverable: it is what distinguishes a program that was examined from one that was glanced at.
"Anchor handles account validation." Name the constraint. Anchor validates what the account struct declares and nothing more:
#[account(mut)]is not an ownership check, andUncheckedAccountopts out entirely. Cite the attribute, not the framework."The PDA derivation makes it safe." Derivation is not validation.
create_program_addresswithout the canonical bump admits multiple valid addresses, which is pattern 2 in full.
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer975 B
- LICENSELicence file added by AutoGineer19.7 KiB
- SKILL.md14.1 KiB
- agents/openai.yaml258 B
- assets/trail-of-bits-mark.svg3.0 KiB
- resources/VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md19.9 KiB
resources/VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md
6.1 ARBITRARY CPI (Cross-Program Invocation) ⚠️ CRITICAL
Description: Using invoke() or invoke_signed() with user-controlled program IDs allows attackers to call malicious programs instead of the intended program.
Detection Patterns:
// VULNERABLE: User-provided program ID without validation
pub fn transfer_tokens(
ctx: Context<TransferTokens>,
amount: u64,
) -> Result<()> {
// User provides token_program account
let token_program = &ctx.accounts.token_program;
// WRONG: No check that token_program.key() == spl_token::ID!
invoke(
&spl_token::instruction::transfer(...),
&[
ctx.accounts.from.to_account_info(),
ctx.accounts.to.to_account_info(),
token_program.to_account_info(), // ATTACKER CONTROLLED!
],
)?;
Ok(())
}
// VULNERABLE: Native Solana without validation
pub fn process_instruction(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
instruction_data: &[u8],
) -> ProgramResult {
let accounts_iter = &mut accounts.iter();
let token_program = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
// WRONG: No validation of token_program.key
invoke(
&transfer_instruction,
&[from_account, to_account, token_program], // Unvalidated!
)?;
Ok(())
}What to Check:
[ ] ALL CPI program IDs validated before
invoke()orinvoke_signed()[ ] Validation:
program.key() == EXPECTED_PROGRAM_ID[ ] Cannot pass arbitrary program accounts from user
[ ] Anchor: Use
Program<'info, T>type with constraint
Mitigation:
// SECURE: Validate program ID (Native)
use spl_token;
pub fn process_instruction(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
instruction_data: &[u8],
) -> ProgramResult {
let accounts_iter = &mut accounts.iter();
let token_program = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
// CRITICAL: Validate program ID
if token_program.key != &spl_token::ID {
return Err(ProgramError::IncorrectProgramId);
}
// Safe to invoke
invoke(
&spl_token::instruction::transfer(...),
&[from_account, to_account, token_program],
)?;
Ok(())
}
// SECURE: Use Anchor Program type with constraint
use anchor_spl::token::{Token, TokenAccount};
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct TransferTokens<'info> {
#[account(mut)]
pub from: Account<'info, TokenAccount>,
#[account(mut)]
pub to: Account<'info, TokenAccount>,
pub authority: Signer<'info>,
// Program<'info, Token> automatically validates program ID
pub token_program: Program<'info, Token>,
}
pub fn transfer_tokens(ctx: Context<TransferTokens>, amount: u64) -> Result<()> {
// Anchor ensures token_program.key() == Token::id()
let cpi_accounts = Transfer {
from: ctx.accounts.from.to_account_info(),
to: ctx.accounts.to.to_account_info(),
authority: ctx.accounts.authority.to_account_info(),
};
let cpi_ctx = CpiContext::new(
ctx.accounts.token_program.to_account_info(),
cpi_accounts,
);
anchor_spl::token::transfer(cpi_ctx, amount)?;
Ok(())
}Tool Detection:
Trail of Bits lint:
unchecked-cpi-program-idLook for:
invoke()without prior program ID check
References: building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/solana/arbitrary_cpi
4.2 IMPROPER PDA VALIDATION ⚠️ CRITICAL
Description: Program-Derived Addresses (PDAs) can have multiple valid bumps for the same seeds. Using create_program_address() without verifying canonical bump allows PDA spoofing attacks.
Detection Patterns:
// VULNERABLE: Using create_program_address without bump validation
pub fn withdraw(ctx: Context<Withdraw>, bump: u8) -> Result<()> {
// User provides bump
let vault_seeds = &[
b"vault",
ctx.accounts.user.key().as_ref(),
&[bump], // WRONG: Attacker can provide non-canonical bump!
];
let vault = Pubkey::create_program_address(vault_seeds, ctx.program_id)?;
// This vault might not be the canonical PDA!
// Attacker could create multiple PDAs and drain wrong vault
Ok(())
}
// VULNERABLE: Not comparing with find_program_address result
pub fn initialize(ctx: Context<Initialize>, bump: u8) -> Result<()> {
let pda_seeds = &[b"state", &[bump]];
let pda = Pubkey::create_program_address(pda_seeds, ctx.program_id)?;
// WRONG: Not verifying this is the canonical PDA
// Should check pda == ctx.accounts.pda_account.key()
}What to Check:
[ ] PDAs use
find_program_address()to get canonical bump[ ] OR
create_program_address()result compared with expected PDA[ ] Bump seed stored and reused (not provided by user)
[ ] Anchor: Use
seedsandbumpconstraints
Mitigation:
// SECURE: Use find_program_address (Native)
pub fn withdraw(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
) -> ProgramResult {
let accounts_iter = &mut accounts.iter();
let vault_account = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
let user_account = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
// Find canonical PDA with bump
let (vault_pda, bump) = Pubkey::find_program_address(
&[b"vault", user_account.key.as_ref()],
program_id,
);
// Verify provided account matches canonical PDA
if vault_account.key != &vault_pda {
return Err(ProgramError::InvalidAccountData);
}
// Use bump for signing
let vault_seeds = &[
b"vault",
user_account.key.as_ref(),
&[bump],
];
invoke_signed(
&transfer_instruction,
&[vault_account, destination],
&[vault_seeds],
)?;
Ok(())
}
// SECURE: Anchor with seeds constraint
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct Withdraw<'info> {
#[account(
mut,
seeds = [b"vault", user.key().as_ref()],
bump, // Anchor automatically validates canonical bump
)]
pub vault: Account<'info, VaultAccount>,
pub user: Signer<'info>,
}
pub fn withdraw(ctx: Context<Withdraw>, amount: u64) -> Result<()> {
// Anchor has already validated vault is canonical PDA
let bump = *ctx.bumps.get("vault").unwrap();
let vault_seeds = &[
b"vault",
ctx.accounts.user.key().as_ref(),
&[bump],
];
// Safe to use in CPI
let signer_seeds = &[&vault_seeds[..]];
// CPI with PDA signer
Ok(())
}
// BETTER: Store bump in account
#[account]
pub struct VaultAccount {
pub bump: u8, // Store canonical bump
pub owner: Pubkey,
pub balance: u64,
}
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct Initialize<'info> {
#[account(
init,
payer = user,
space = 8 + 1 + 32 + 8,
seeds = [b"vault", user.key().as_ref()],
bump,
)]
pub vault: Account<'info, VaultAccount>,
#[account(mut)]
pub user: Signer<'info>,
pub system_program: Program<'info, System>,
}
pub fn initialize(ctx: Context<Initialize>) -> Result<()> {
let vault = &mut ctx.accounts.vault;
vault.bump = *ctx.bumps.get("vault").unwrap(); // Store canonical bump
vault.owner = ctx.accounts.user.key();
vault.balance = 0;
Ok(())
}Tool Detection:
Trail of Bits lint:
improper-pda-validationLook for:
create_program_addresswithoutfind_program_addresscomparison
References: building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/solana/pda_validation
4.3 MISSING OWNERSHIP CHECK ⚠️ HIGH
Description: Accounts without owner validation can be spoofed by attackers. User provides account with attacker-controlled data, bypassing program logic.
Detection Patterns:
// VULNERABLE: Deserializing account without owner check
pub fn process_instruction(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
instruction_data: &[u8],
) -> ProgramResult {
let accounts_iter = &mut accounts.iter();
let vault_account = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
// WRONG: No owner check before deserializing!
let vault: Vault = Vault::try_from_slice(&vault_account.data.borrow())?;
// vault could be fake account owned by attacker with fake balance!
if vault.balance >= amount {
// Process withdrawal using fake balance
}
Ok(())
}
// VULNERABLE: Anchor without owner constraint
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct Withdraw<'info> {
/// CHECK: This is unsafe - no owner validation!
pub vault: AccountInfo<'info>,
}What to Check:
[ ] ALL accounts validated for correct owner before deserialization
[ ] Native: Check
account.owner == expected_program_id[ ] Anchor: Use
Account<'info, T>type (automatic owner check)[ ] System accounts: Check
account.owner == system_program::ID[ ] Token accounts: Check
account.owner == spl_token::ID
Mitigation:
// SECURE: Validate owner before deserializing (Native)
pub fn process_instruction(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
instruction_data: &[u8],
) -> ProgramResult {
let accounts_iter = &mut accounts.iter();
let vault_account = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
// CRITICAL: Validate owner
if vault_account.owner != program_id {
return Err(ProgramError::IncorrectProgramId);
}
// Safe to deserialize - we own this account
let vault: Vault = Vault::try_from_slice(&vault_account.data.borrow())?;
Ok(())
}
// SECURE: Use Anchor Account type (automatic validation)
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct Withdraw<'info> {
#[account(mut)]
pub vault: Account<'info, VaultAccount>, // Anchor checks owner automatically
pub user: Signer<'info>,
}
// For third-party program accounts
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct ProcessToken<'info> {
#[account(mut)]
pub token_account: Account<'info, TokenAccount>, // Validates owner == Token program
pub token_program: Program<'info, Token>,
}Tool Detection:
Trail of Bits lint:
missing-ownership-checkLook for: Deserialization without owner validation
References: building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/solana/ownership_check
4.4 MISSING SIGNER CHECK ⚠️ CRITICAL
Description: Sensitive operations without is_signer validation allow unauthorized users to call functions intended for specific authorities.
Detection Patterns:
// VULNERABLE: No signer check on authority account
pub fn withdraw(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
amount: u64,
) -> ProgramResult {
let accounts_iter = &mut accounts.iter();
let vault = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
let authority = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
// WRONG: No check that authority.is_signer == true!
// Attacker can provide any authority account and withdraw
let vault_data: Vault = Vault::try_from_slice(&vault.data.borrow())?;
// Check authority matches (but attacker provided this!)
if vault_data.authority != *authority.key {
return Err(ProgramError::InvalidAccountData);
}
// Process withdrawal - ATTACKER CAN CALL THIS!
Ok(())
}
// VULNERABLE: Anchor without Signer type
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct Withdraw<'info> {
#[account(mut)]
pub vault: Account<'info, VaultAccount>,
/// CHECK: Missing signer constraint!
pub authority: AccountInfo<'info>,
}What to Check:
[ ] ALL authority accounts validated with
is_signer[ ] Native: Check
account.is_signer == true[ ] Anchor: Use
Signer<'info>type (automatic validation)[ ] Access-controlled functions require signer check
Mitigation:
// SECURE: Check is_signer (Native)
pub fn withdraw(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
amount: u64,
) -> ProgramResult {
let accounts_iter = &mut accounts.iter();
let vault = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
let authority = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
// CRITICAL: Verify authority signed the transaction
if !authority.is_signer {
return Err(ProgramError::MissingRequiredSignature);
}
let vault_data: Vault = Vault::try_from_slice(&vault.data.borrow())?;
// Now safe to check authority matches
if vault_data.authority != *authority.key {
return Err(ProgramError::InvalidAccountData);
}
// Process withdrawal - only if authority signed
Ok(())
}
// SECURE: Use Anchor Signer type (automatic validation)
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct Withdraw<'info> {
#[account(
mut,
has_one = authority, // Also validate vault.authority == authority.key()
)]
pub vault: Account<'info, VaultAccount>,
pub authority: Signer<'info>, // Anchor checks is_signer automatically
}
pub fn withdraw(ctx: Context<Withdraw>, amount: u64) -> Result<()> {
// Anchor has already validated:
// 1. authority.is_signer == true
// 2. vault.authority == authority.key()
// Safe to proceed with withdrawal
Ok(())
}
// For admin functions
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct UpdateConfig<'info> {
#[account(
mut,
has_one = admin,
)]
pub config: Account<'info, Config>,
pub admin: Signer<'info>, // Must be signer
}Tool Detection:
Trail of Bits lint:
missing-signer-checkLook for: Authority checks without
is_signervalidation
References: building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/solana/signer_check
4.5 SYSVAR ACCOUNT CHECK ⚠️ HIGH (Pre-Solana 1.8.1)
Description: In Solana versions before 1.8.1, users can pass spoofed sysvar accounts (Instructions, Clock, etc.) to bypass authentication. This affects load_instruction_at() and similar functions.
Detection Patterns:
// VULNERABLE: Using unchecked load functions (Solana < 1.8.1)
use solana_program::sysvar::instructions;
pub fn process_instruction(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
instruction_data: &[u8],
) -> ProgramResult {
let accounts_iter = &mut accounts.iter();
let instructions_sysvar = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
// WRONG: load_instruction_at() doesn't validate sysvar account!
let current_ix = instructions::load_instruction_at(0, instructions_sysvar)?;
// Attacker can provide fake Instructions sysvar with spoofed instruction data!
// Bypass authentication by faking previous instruction
}
// VULNERABLE: load_current_index() without validation
let current_index = instructions::load_current_index(instructions_sysvar)?;What to Check:
[ ] Using Solana 1.8.1 or higher
[ ] Using checked functions:
load_instruction_at_checked(),load_current_index_checked()[ ] NOT using:
load_instruction_at(),load_current_index()(unchecked versions)[ ] Sysvar accounts validated against known addresses
Mitigation:
// OPTION 1: Upgrade to Solana 1.8.1+ and use checked functions
use solana_program::sysvar::instructions;
pub fn process_instruction(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
instruction_data: &[u8],
) -> ProgramResult {
let accounts_iter = &mut accounts.iter();
let instructions_sysvar = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
// SECURE: load_instruction_at_checked validates sysvar account
let current_ix = instructions::load_instruction_at_checked(
0,
instructions_sysvar
)?;
// Safe - sysvar is validated
Ok(())
}
// OPTION 2: Manual validation (if on old Solana version)
pub fn process_instruction(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
instruction_data: &[u8],
) -> ProgramResult {
let accounts_iter = &mut accounts.iter();
let instructions_sysvar = next_account_info(accounts_iter)?;
// Validate sysvar account address
if instructions_sysvar.key != &solana_program::sysvar::instructions::ID {
return Err(ProgramError::InvalidAccountData);
}
// Now safe to use unchecked function
let current_ix = instructions::load_instruction_at(0, instructions_sysvar)?;
Ok(())
}
// SECURE: Anchor with address constraint
#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct CheckInstructions<'info> {
/// CHECK: Validated against known sysvar address
#[account(address = solana_program::sysvar::instructions::ID)]
pub instructions_sysvar: AccountInfo<'info>,
}Tool Detection:
Trail of Bits lint:
unchecked-sysvar-accountLook for:
load_instruction_at()instead ofload_instruction_at_checked()
References: building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/solana/sysvar_get
4.6 IMPROPER INSTRUCTION INTROSPECTION ⚠️ MEDIUM
Description: Using absolute indexes in instruction introspection allows reusing the same instruction context across multiple program calls. Should use relative indexes to ensure proper correlation.
Detection Patterns:
// VULNERABLE: Absolute index in load_instruction_at
use solana_program::sysvar::instructions;
pub fn process_instruction(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
instruction_data: &[u8],
) -> ProgramResult {
let instructions_sysvar = &accounts[0];
// WRONG: Using absolute index 0
let prev_ix = instructions::load_instruction_at_checked(0, instructions_sysvar)?;
// Attacker can craft transaction where instruction 0 is benign,
// but instruction 1 (malicious) also loads instruction 0 for validation
// Same instruction 0 used to validate both instruction 0 and 1!
}
// VULNERABLE: No correlation between instructions
pub fn withdraw(ctx: Context<Withdraw>) -> Result<()> {
let instructions_sysvar = &ctx.accounts.instructions_sysvar;
// Check that previous instruction was deposit
let prev_ix = instructions::load_instruction_at_checked(0, instructions_sysvar)?;
// WRONG: Not checking that prev_ix is actually related to current instruction
// Could be completely unrelated instruction from earlier in transaction
}What to Check:
[ ] Use relative indexes:
get_instruction_relative(-1, ...)for previous instruction[ ] Absolute indexes only when specifically intended
[ ] Validate correlation between current and referenced instructions
[ ] Cannot reuse same instruction validation across multiple calls
Mitigation:
// SECURE: Use relative indexing
use solana_program::sysvar::instructions;
pub fn process_instruction(
program_id: &Pubkey,
accounts: &[AccountInfo],
instruction_data: &[u8],
) -> ProgramResult {
let instructions_sysvar = &accounts[0];
// Get current instruction index
let current_index = instructions::load_current_index_checked(instructions_sysvar)?;
// SECURE: Get immediately preceding instruction with relative index
if current_index > 0 {
let prev_ix = instructions::load_instruction_at_checked(
(current_index - 1) as usize,
instructions_sysvar
)?;
// This is guaranteed to be the instruction immediately before current
// Validate prev_ix is the expected setup instruction
}
Ok(())
}
// BETTER: Use get_instruction_relative (if available)
let prev_ix = instructions::get_instruction_relative(-1, instructions_sysvar)?;
// Explicitly relative to current instruction
// SECURE: Additional correlation validation
pub fn withdraw(ctx: Context<Withdraw>) -> Result<()> {
let instructions_sysvar = &ctx.accounts.instructions_sysvar;
let current_ix_index = instructions::load_current_index_checked(instructions_sysvar)?;
// Must have previous instruction
require!(current_ix_index > 0, ErrorCode::NoPreviousInstruction);
// Get previous instruction
let prev_ix_index = current_ix_index - 1;
let prev_ix = instructions::load_instruction_at_checked(
prev_ix_index as usize,
instructions_sysvar
)?;
// Validate previous instruction is deposit to same program
require!(
prev_ix.program_id == ctx.program_id,
ErrorCode::InvalidPreviousProgram
);
// Validate accounts in previous instruction match expectations
// This ensures proper correlation between deposit and withdraw
require!(
prev_ix.accounts[0].pubkey == ctx.accounts.vault.key(),
ErrorCode::VaultMismatch
);
Ok(())
}References: building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/solana/insecure_instruction_introspection
Requirements and compatibility
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Security
No issues found by our static scan· No issues found
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Published by
- Trail of Bits
- Publisher
- Trail of Bits (Official)
- Source
- trailofbits/skills · plugins/building-secure-contracts/skills/solana-vulnerability-scanner · commit e4dd0bb
- Licence
- Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (redistribution allowed)
- LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Trail of Bits or Trail of Bits.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download solana-vulnerability-scanner.zip