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.
Empieza por la explicación más corta y útil antes de profundizar.
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.
Usa primero la analogía corta para razonar mejor sobre el término cuando aparezca en código, docs o prompts.
Piensa en esto como un bloque de construcción que conecta una definición aislada con el sistema mayor donde vive.
Ubica el término dentro de la capa de Solana en la que vive para razonar mejor sobre él.
Fallos, auditorías, superficies de ataque y patrones seguros.
Convierte el término de vocabulario en algo operacional para producto e ingeniería.
Este término desbloquea conceptos adyacentes rápido, así que funciona mejor cuando lo tratas como un punto de conexión y no como una definición aislada.
Usa este bloque compacto cuando quieras dar contexto sólido a un agente o asistente sin volcar toda la página.
Vulnerability Disclosure (vulnerability-disclosure) Categoría: Seguridad Definición: 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. Relacionados: Auditoría de Seguridad, Bug Bounty
Usa contexto del glosario, relaciones entre términos, modelos mentales y builder paths para recibir respuestas estructuradas en vez de output genérico.
Opcional: pega código Anchor, Solana o Rust para que el Copilot mapee primitivas de vuelta al glosario.
El Copilot responderá usando el término actual, conceptos relacionados, modelos mentales y el grafo alrededor del glosario.
Estas ramas muestran qué conceptos toca este término directamente y qué existe una capa más allá de ellos.
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.
Estos son los siguientes conceptos que vale la pena abrir si quieres que este término tenga más sentido dentro de un workflow real de Solana.
Las entradas del glosario se vuelven útiles cuando están conectadas. Estos enlaces son el camino más corto hacia ideas adyacentes.
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.
Estas entradas viven junto al término actual y ayudan a que la página se sienta parte de un grafo de conocimiento más amplio en lugar de un callejón sin salida.
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.