Exploit where an attacker crafts a transaction with instructions in a specific order to manipulate program state between instructions within the same transaction. Since Solana executes all instructions in a transaction sequentially, earlier instructions can modify account state that later instructions depend on, enabling unexpected state transitions.
Comece pela explicação mais curta e útil antes de aprofundar.
Exploit where an attacker crafts a transaction with instructions in a specific order to manipulate program state between instructions within the same transaction. Since Solana executes all instructions in a transaction sequentially, earlier instructions can modify account state that later instructions depend on, enabling unexpected state transitions.
Use primeiro a analogia curta para raciocinar melhor sobre o termo quando ele aparecer em código, docs ou prompts.
Pense nisso como um bloco de construção que ajuda a ligar uma definição isolada ao sistema maior onde ela vive.
Coloque o termo dentro da camada de Solana em que ele vive para raciocinar melhor sobre ele.
Falhas, auditorias, superfícies de ataque e padrões seguros.
Transforme o termo de vocabulário em algo operacional para produto e engenharia.
Este termo destrava conceitos adjacentes rapidamente, então funciona melhor quando você o trata como um ponto de conexão, não como definição isolada.
Use este bloco compacto quando quiser dar contexto aterrado para um agente ou assistente sem despejar a página inteira.
Instruction Ordering Attack (instruction-ordering-attack) Categoria: Segurança Definição: Exploit where an attacker crafts a transaction with instructions in a specific order to manipulate program state between instructions within the same transaction. Since Solana executes all instructions in a transaction sequentially, earlier instructions can modify account state that later instructions depend on, enabling unexpected state transitions. Relacionados: Instrução, Transação, Front-Running
Use contexto do glossário, relações entre termos, modelos mentais e builder paths para receber respostas estruturadas em vez de output genérico.
Opcional: cole código Anchor, Solana ou Rust para o Copilot mapear primitivas de volta para termos do glossário.
O Copilot vai responder usando o termo atual, conceitos relacionados, modelos mentais e o grafo ao redor do glossário.
Esses ramos mostram quais conceitos esse termo toca diretamente e o que existe uma camada além deles.
A single operation within a transaction that invokes a program. An instruction specifies: (1) the program ID to call, (2) an array of account metas (pubkey, is_signer, is_writable), and (3) an opaque data byte array. Programs decode the instruction data to determine which operation to perform.
An atomic unit of execution containing one or more instructions, a recent blockhash, and one or more signatures. All instructions in a transaction execute sequentially and atomically—if any instruction fails, the entire transaction reverts. Transactions have a 1,232-byte size limit (matching IPv6 MTU) and a default 200,000 CU budget.
An attack where an adversary observes a pending or not-yet-finalized transaction (e.g., a large swap or NFT mint) and submits a competing transaction with higher priority fees or via validator relationships to execute before the victim's transaction, profiting from predictable price impact. On Solana, transactions are not held in a public mempool the same way as in Ethereum — leaders receive transactions privately — but front-running is still possible through Jito's block engine bundle mechanism, validator collusion, or by monitoring gossip. Slippage tolerance parameters and commit-reveal schemes are the primary application-level defenses.
Estes são os próximos conceitos que valem abrir se você quiser que este termo faça mais sentido dentro de um workflow real de Solana.
Essas entradas são fáceis de misturar quando você lê rápido, faz prompting em um LLM ou está entrando em uma nova camada de Solana.
An exploit that resurrects an account that a program has logically closed within the same transaction by sending lamports back to it before the transaction finalizes, causing its on-chain data — which was never securely wiped — to re-appear as a funded, seemingly valid account in future transactions. Because the Solana runtime keeps an account alive as long as it holds any lamports, transferring even 1 lamport back to a closed-but-not-wiped account prevents its deletion and allows an attacker to reuse its stale state. The defense is to explicitly overwrite account data with a closed discriminator and to use force-defund patterns so any lamports transferred in during the same transaction are immediately drained.
An exploit where an attacker borrows a large amount of tokens via an uncollateralized flash loan, uses the borrowed funds to manipulate protocol state (typically distorting oracle prices or satisfying collateral requirements), extracts profit from the manipulated state, and repays the loan — all within a single atomic transaction. On Solana, flash loans are possible because transactions are atomic: if any instruction fails, the entire transaction reverts including the loan. Defenses include using time-weighted oracle prices, enforcing borrowing caps, and requiring multi-slot settlement.
Entradas de glossário só ficam úteis quando estão conectadas. Esses links são o caminho mais curto para ideias adjacentes.
A single operation within a transaction that invokes a program. An instruction specifies: (1) the program ID to call, (2) an array of account metas (pubkey, is_signer, is_writable), and (3) an opaque data byte array. Programs decode the instruction data to determine which operation to perform.
An atomic unit of execution containing one or more instructions, a recent blockhash, and one or more signatures. All instructions in a transaction execute sequentially and atomically—if any instruction fails, the entire transaction reverts. Transactions have a 1,232-byte size limit (matching IPv6 MTU) and a default 200,000 CU budget.
An attack where an adversary observes a pending or not-yet-finalized transaction (e.g., a large swap or NFT mint) and submits a competing transaction with higher priority fees or via validator relationships to execute before the victim's transaction, profiting from predictable price impact. On Solana, transactions are not held in a public mempool the same way as in Ethereum — leaders receive transactions privately — but front-running is still possible through Jito's block engine bundle mechanism, validator collusion, or by monitoring gossip. Slippage tolerance parameters and commit-reveal schemes are the primary application-level defenses.
Essas entradas vivem ao lado do termo atual e ajudam a página a parecer parte de um grafo maior, não um beco sem saída.
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.