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.
Start with the shortest useful explanation before going deeper.
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.
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.
Place the term inside its Solana layer so the definition is easier to reason about.
Failure modes, audits, attack surfaces, and safe design patterns.
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.
Use this compact block when you want to give an agent or assistant grounded context without dumping the entire page.
Vulnerability Disclosure (vulnerability-disclosure) Category: Security Definition: 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. Related: Security Audit, Bug Bounty
Use glossary context, relationships, mental models, and builder paths to get structured answers instead of generic chat output.
Optional: paste Anchor, Solana, or Rust code so the Copilot can map primitives back to glossary terms.
The Copilot will answer using the current term, related concepts, mental models, and the surrounding glossary graph.
These branches show which concepts this term touches directly and what sits one layer beyond them.
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 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.
These are the next concepts worth opening if you want this term to make more sense inside a real Solana workflow.
Glossary entries become useful when they are connected. These links are the shortest path to adjacent ideas.
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 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.
These entries live beside the current term and help the page feel like part of a larger knowledge graph instead of a dead end.
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.
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.
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.
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.