Smart contracts are essentially self-executing contracts that run on encoded-scripts in blockchains these days, and they have been used to establish various functionalities within the rapidly developing crypto market place like creation of decentralized applications (dApps) creation of ERC-20 Tokens among others; non-fungible tokens (NFTs) minting being one of them.
Each and every Ethereum intelligent contract is open source which means that their source code is available for everyone to use or even review (though at times, one might have to disassemble them). As much as this tends to bring about some form of transparency on the part of developers; it also puts them at risk from malicious software writers who might find ways of compromising such contracts through errors made during the coding process or providing inadequate security precautions.
Smart contracts are much more complex today than they were before so security flaws and bugs often go unnoticed in futuristic apps, which makes them vulnerable.Thus there’s need for frequent checks by which to detect defects that could be exploited during hacking processes because as development process grows increasingly complicated; no one knows when there might happen such kind of situation where someone finds out an opening somewhere along his way just from luck.So what do you think about all those people whose work involves generation code?
This article explains smart contract audits and how they help improve your security.
What are smart contracts?
Smart contracts is contracts which self-execute with its terms directly written into lines of code. These contracts in turn, execute predefined actions when specified conditions are met.
The code runs on a distributed ledger technology, such as blockchain. This offers several advantages, including
- Transparency;
- Elimination of the need for intermediaries;
- Cost reduction compared to traditional contractual processes.
Each party does not need to trust the other. All they have to do is verify that the code does what it is supposed to do.
What is a smart contract security audit?
A smart contract security audit is a thorough examination that assesses the security of the smart contract's code and identifies any potential vulnerabilities. These audits also tend to look for inefficiencies and plainly bad code regardless of whether or not they are directly threatening security.
Experienced security professionals are in charge of carrying out the audit, they highly specialized in blockchain technology. It aims at finding out if there exist any security flaws or coding errors that may result into potential breaches or exploits.
Why smart contract security audits are important
Smart contracts are definitely not secure, even though they could be the focus for their emergence. If there are any bugs in these codes, major losses might be claimed. They could access finances of any private or public figures making it impossible for the owners’ consent upon taking such actions.
If a smart contract is hacked and money is stolen, getting it back is very hard because once the money is gone, there is no way to reverse the transaction. This is why smart contract audit is incredibly vital.
At its heart, carrying out a security audit gives users confidence that they have scrutinized the various contracts installed on them thoroughly, and they are devoid of any exploitable weaknesses (assuming the ones doing the evaluation did not miss any major aspect). It is a way of stopping likely future intrusions and preserving the completeness of the smart contract world.
Other advantages of smart contract security audit are
- Audits early in the development lifecycle can avoid costly mistakes after implementation;
- Security auditors manually verify the code of smart contracts, which helps avoid negative consequences;
- Audits ensure asset security to all owners in decentralized applications;
- Comprehensive audits produce analytical reports with vulnerability details and mitigation recommendations;
- Potential increase in efficiency and functionality if the auditor detects imperfect code.
The Top 7 Frequently Occurring Types of Smart Contract Attacks and Their Mitigation
One of the most important ways to avoid smart contract vulnerabilities is to know the most common problems and how to prevent them.
There are a number of security vulnerabilities most commonly found in smart contracts. The following list of the top seven smart contract attack types, along with some practical countermeasures,
Reentry attacks
Solidity smart contract's imperative execution facilitates presence of reentry attack vectors. Once a contract calls another contract externally, the executing command of the calling contract will halt prior to end of the call.
This makes it possible for a malicious contract to withdraw resources indefinitely without updating the balance. Reentry attacks may be either single-function, cross-function, cross-contract, or read-only.
Developers can alleviate the issue by carefully designing external methods and thereby ensuring that the contract status is properly validated and updated, in addition they needed a reentrant protector to keep their multiple functions from trying to execute concurrently; there is an audit tool called Slither which may identify various types of reentrancy concerns as well as Mythril and Securify.
Oracle Manipulation
Smart contracts use an oracle to get input and take in non-crypto data. If the oracle’s information is altered or wrong, there is a possibility that smart contracts will start performing their functions inappropriately thereby making them vulnerable to attack.
Some attackers distort prices on oracles before employing elaborate smart contracts that employ flash loans to significantly boost their capital thereby increasing the amount of money that can be stolen.
In solving such problems, developers may opt for distributed sources of information such as Chainlink or Tellor, or they can even choose more than one oracle in order to have high-quality information that cannot be easily tampered with by outsiders.
Gas Griefing
Situations sometimes happen where a user wants to execute a smart contract but does not provide enough gas for executing subcalls . This might alter the logic used in an application in a significant manner assuming that the contract fails to confirm whether enough gas was available for the sub-calls or not.
Sadly, there are no current ways to completely control gas manipulation. This is due to the fact that developers could not know beforehand how much gas will be spent on each transaction made with their contract. However, a higher gas price may lead to unsuccessful transactions
Transaction order dependency attacks (Frontrunning)
In order for miners to select transactions with high gas prices, smart contracts development that have not yet been fully completed are displayed in a public manner. When publicly displayed, it could mean an attacker getting ahead of another one through sending an identical transaction that has more gas attached to it. Robots whose operators get in touch with miners process such transactions always execute this kind of attack.
An instance is that when a person tries to conduct a larger swap on a Decentralized Exchange (DEX) without putting a slippage limit, that is the percentage they are ready to set aside due to the effect on price, in place; bots may step in and prevent the trade from happening by rushing ahead of it. Bot causes an enormous increase in the price of the asset by making a larger buy order with higher gas fee which is verified before his own transaction but after his/her tx has been submitted. The gas rate of the first transaction is less than the second transaction which causes the rise in the price of the asset that will be bought by the trader as he/she is already making an order.Finally, the bot sells all the tokens it bought at a profit, causing the price to drop again.
Developers may choose to accept transactions with a gas price that is not higher than a predetermined threshold to mitigate frontrunning attacks. On the other hand, they can opt for a commit-and-reveal scheme, which involves submitting the solutionʼs hash first rather than clear text to prevent frontrunners from meddling.
One good measure to avoid users' systematic yield fetching is lowering a little. Initially alerting a user of slippage is significant in most cases as it often helps to prevent them from taking advantage of such information.
Force feeding attacks
Smart contracts cannot be stopped by developers from receiving Ether, which is a native token of Ethereum. This enables force-fed attacks, where an attacker tries to manipulate the Ether balance of a contract in order to modify the expected balance known by the internal code of the contract.
To avoid contract balances as a check or protection for functions, developers must know how to prevent force-feeding attacks.
Timestamp dependency
The cause of this mistake is when the smart contract depends on the block’s time stamp to carry out an action. Smart contracts cannot always agree on a particular date or time value across all nodes because Ethereum is a decentralized platform.
In other to sidestep such exposure, developers are advised against utilizing ‘block.timestamp’ as logical checks or control or as a source of randomness.
Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks
Smart contracts can be compromised through a denial of service attack where someone overwhelms the system so that it cannot execute some of the other contracts or alters their values to favor them. This could affect auction outcomes or monetary transfers.
It is in the hands of developers to keep off DoS attacks simply by making them expensive to the attackers, through introducing buffering puzzles that are timed and increasing gas fees to heighten the DoS attack execution costs.
Conclusion: Don't skimp on smart contract audits
In the fast moving world that relies on clever deals with blockchain, it's essential to take care of one of the most important tasks on earth – make sure those transactional documents can always execute themselves. As seen from the first paragraph below, auditing how secure smart contracts are does help protect what belongs to certain individuals plus make sure we don’t fail our planet by looking at these issues generally.
Developers can significantly reduce the risks associated with the deployment of smart contracts by identifying vulnerabilities using rigorous code analysis and applying best practices as well as mitigation techniques.
In the end, prioritizing smart contract security implies that people and businesses are able to harness all its transformational capabilities without their safety being endangered.
Comments