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.
Comece pela explicação mais curta e útil antes de aprofundar.
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 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.
Vulnerability Disclosure (vulnerability-disclosure) Categoria: Segurança Definição: 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: Auditoria de Segurança, Bug Bounty
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 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.
Estes são os próximos conceitos que valem abrir se você quiser que este termo faça mais sentido dentro de um workflow real de Solana.
Entradas de glossário só ficam úteis quando estão conectadas. Esses links são o caminho mais curto para ideias adjacentes.
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.
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.