Security

Bug Bounty

Security program offering financial rewards to researchers who find and responsibly report vulnerabilities. The Solana Foundation maintains a bug bounty program on Immunefi with rewards up to $1M for critical validator/runtime bugs. Major protocols like Jupiter, Marinade, and Jito also run independent bounty programs.

IDbug-bounty

Plain meaning

Start with the shortest useful explanation before going deeper.

Security program offering financial rewards to researchers who find and responsibly report vulnerabilities. The Solana Foundation maintains a bug bounty program on Immunefi with rewards up to $1M for critical validator/runtime bugs. Major protocols like Jupiter, Marinade, and Jito also run independent bounty programs.

Mental model

Use the quick analogy first so the term is easier to reason about when you meet it in code, docs, or prompts.

Think of it as a building block that connects one definition to the larger Solana system around it.

Technical context

Place the term inside its Solana layer so the definition is easier to reason about.

Failure modes, audits, attack surfaces, and safe design patterns.

Why builders care

Turn the term from vocabulary into something operational for product and engineering work.

This term unlocks adjacent concepts quickly, so it works best when you treat it as a junction instead of an isolated definition.

AI handoff

AI handoff

Use this compact block when you want to give an agent or assistant grounded context without dumping the entire page.

Bug Bounty (bug-bounty)
Category: Security
Definition: Security program offering financial rewards to researchers who find and responsibly report vulnerabilities. The Solana Foundation maintains a bug bounty program on Immunefi with rewards up to $1M for critical validator/runtime bugs. Major protocols like Jupiter, Marinade, and Jito also run independent bounty programs.
Related: Security Audit, Vulnerability Disclosure
Glossary Copilot

Ask grounded Solana questions without leaving the glossary.

Use glossary context, relationships, mental models, and builder paths to get structured answers instead of generic chat output.

Explain this code

Optional: paste Anchor, Solana, or Rust code so the Copilot can map primitives back to glossary terms.

Ask a glossary-grounded question

Ask a glossary-grounded question

The Copilot will answer using the current term, related concepts, mental models, and the surrounding glossary graph.

Concept graph

See the term as part of a network, not a dead-end definition.

These branches show which concepts this term touches directly and what sits one layer beyond them.

Branch

Security Audit

A formal, structured review of a Solana program's source code, architecture, and deployment configuration by experienced security researchers, aimed at identifying vulnerabilities — including but not limited to the OWASP-equivalent Solana Top 10 (missing signer checks, owner checks, arithmetic errors, etc.) — before mainnet deployment. Reputable Solana-focused audit firms include OtterSec, Ackee Blockchain, sec3 (formerly Soteria), Neodyme, Trail of Bits, and Halborn; most audits produce a severity-rated finding report (critical, high, medium, low, informational) that programs are expected to remediate and publish. A single audit is considered minimum due diligence for programs holding significant user funds; continuous auditing and bug bounties on platforms like Immunefi are considered best practice.

Branch

Vulnerability Disclosure

Process of responsibly reporting security flaws to affected parties before public disclosure. Solana has a bug bounty program through Immunefi, and most major protocols maintain responsible disclosure policies. Coordinated disclosure gives teams time to patch vulnerabilities before exploitation.

Next concepts to explore

Keep the learning chain moving instead of stopping at one definition.

These are the next concepts worth opening if you want this term to make more sense inside a real Solana workflow.

Security

Security Audit

A formal, structured review of a Solana program's source code, architecture, and deployment configuration by experienced security researchers, aimed at identifying vulnerabilities — including but not limited to the OWASP-equivalent Solana Top 10 (missing signer checks, owner checks, arithmetic errors, etc.) — before mainnet deployment. Reputable Solana-focused audit firms include OtterSec, Ackee Blockchain, sec3 (formerly Soteria), Neodyme, Trail of Bits, and Halborn; most audits produce a severity-rated finding report (critical, high, medium, low, informational) that programs are expected to remediate and publish. A single audit is considered minimum due diligence for programs holding significant user funds; continuous auditing and bug bounties on platforms like Immunefi are considered best practice.

Security

Vulnerability Disclosure

Process of responsibly reporting security flaws to affected parties before public disclosure. Solana has a bug bounty program through Immunefi, and most major protocols maintain responsible disclosure policies. Coordinated disclosure gives teams time to patch vulnerabilities before exploitation.

Security

Bump Seed Canonicalization

The requirement that, when deriving a Program Derived Address (PDA), a program always use the canonical bump — the highest bump value (starting from 255 and decrementing) for which find_program_address returns a valid off-curve point — rather than accepting an arbitrary bump supplied by the caller. If a program stores and re-uses a non-canonical bump, an attacker can create a different PDA (with a different canonical bump) that happens to match a seed set the program trusts, or can derive valid PDAs outside the expected namespace. Anchor's seeds and bump constraints enforce canonicalization by calling find_program_address internally and asserting the provided bump matches; storing the canonical bump in the account at init time (instead of rediscovering it) is the recommended gas-efficient pattern.

Security

Audit Severity Levels

A standardized classification system for security audit findings: Critical (immediate fund loss or protocol compromise, must fix before deployment), High (significant risk of loss under specific conditions), Medium (limited risk or requires unlikely preconditions), Low (minor issues with minimal impact), and Informational (code quality, gas optimization, or best practice suggestions). Severity ratings help teams prioritize remediation and communicate risk to users. Most Solana audit firms (OtterSec, Ackee, sec3) follow this five-tier scale.

Related terms

Follow the concepts that give this term its actual context.

Glossary entries become useful when they are connected. These links are the shortest path to adjacent ideas.

Securityaudit

Security Audit

A formal, structured review of a Solana program's source code, architecture, and deployment configuration by experienced security researchers, aimed at identifying vulnerabilities — including but not limited to the OWASP-equivalent Solana Top 10 (missing signer checks, owner checks, arithmetic errors, etc.) — before mainnet deployment. Reputable Solana-focused audit firms include OtterSec, Ackee Blockchain, sec3 (formerly Soteria), Neodyme, Trail of Bits, and Halborn; most audits produce a severity-rated finding report (critical, high, medium, low, informational) that programs are expected to remediate and publish. A single audit is considered minimum due diligence for programs holding significant user funds; continuous auditing and bug bounties on platforms like Immunefi are considered best practice.

Securityvulnerability-disclosure

Vulnerability Disclosure

Process of responsibly reporting security flaws to affected parties before public disclosure. Solana has a bug bounty program through Immunefi, and most major protocols maintain responsible disclosure policies. Coordinated disclosure gives teams time to patch vulnerabilities before exploitation.

More in category

Stay in the same layer and keep building context.

These entries live beside the current term and help the page feel like part of a larger knowledge graph instead of a dead end.

Security

Missing Signer Check

A vulnerability where a program accepts an account in a privileged role (e.g., admin, authority, payer) without verifying that the account actually signed the transaction, allowing any caller to impersonate that authority by simply passing the target pubkey as an instruction account. In native Solana programs, the check requires asserting account.is_signer == true; in Anchor, the Signer<'info> type enforces this automatically. Exploitation lets an attacker bypass all access control gated on authority equality checks, making it one of the most critical and commonly audited vulnerabilities in Solana programs.

Security

Missing Owner Check

A vulnerability where a program deserializes and trusts account data without first confirming that the account is owned by the expected program, allowing an attacker to substitute a maliciously crafted account owned by a different program whose byte layout happens to satisfy the deserialization. On Solana, every account stores a 32-byte owner field set to the program that created it; native programs must assert account.owner == &expected_program_id, while Anchor's Account<'info, T> wrapper performs this check automatically. Failure to validate ownership can lead to complete auth bypass if an attacker can construct a fake account whose data parses into a struct with elevated privileges.

Security

Arbitrary CPI

A vulnerability where a program accepts an arbitrary program account from the caller and invokes it via Cross-Program Invocation (CPI) without verifying it matches a known, trusted program ID, effectively letting an attacker substitute a malicious program that executes under the victim program's authority or manipulates accounts the victim program passes to it. A common pattern is accepting a token_program account without checking it equals spl_token::ID, so the attacker passes a lookalike program that records or drains account data. Prevention requires hard-coding or explicitly checking the program ID before every CPI call.

Security

PDA Substitution Attack

A vulnerability where a program derives a PDA internally but accepts an externally supplied account as that PDA without re-deriving and comparing the address, allowing an attacker to pass a different PDA (derived from attacker-controlled seeds) that the program will treat as legitimate. Because PDAs are deterministic, the only way to guarantee account identity is to call Pubkey::find_program_address (or equivalent) with the expected seeds inside the program and assert the result equals the supplied key. Anchor's seeds and bump constraints on the Account type automate this re-derivation and equality check.