Skip to main content

access-control

Auto-loaded by access-control-auditor agent during Phase 2. Provides detection patterns for: missing modifiers, privilege escalation, tx.origin phishing, OR/AND logic errors, missing two-step transfer. Core artifact: Permission Matrix.

Zur Installation springen

Quellinformationen

Repository
BitterSecurity/Vigilo
Letzte Quellaktivität
26. Januar 2026 um 12:30
Erkannte Sprache von SKILL.md
Englisch
Sterne
66
Forks
17

Installationsoptionen

Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.

Quelldateien prüfen

Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.

SKILL.md wird angezeigt

SKILL.md
Quellanweisungen · Schreibgeschützte Vorschau
name
access-control
description
Auto-loaded by access-control-auditor agent during Phase 2. Provides detection patterns for: missing modifiers, privilege escalation, tx.origin phishing, OR/AND logic errors, missing two-step transfer. Core artifact: Permission Matrix.
user-invocable
false
# Access Control Vulnerability Analysis **2025 Statistics**: Access Control is **#1 vulnerability class** with **$953.2M in losses**. --- ## Why Access Control Bugs Happen (Root Causes) Understanding root causes helps detect vulnerabilities more effectively. ### Root Cause 1: Intent-Implementation Gap Developer thinks "only admin can call this" but forgets to add modifier. ```solidity // Developer INTENDED: only admin // ACTUAL: anyone can call function setPrice(uint256 newPrice) external { price = newPrice; // @audit No modifier! } ``` **Detection**: Find external/public functions without modifiers, then verify intent. ### Root Cause 2: Visibility ≠ Permission `external`/`public` means "anyone can call" - not a permission system. ```solidity // Visibility is NOT access control function withdraw() public { // @audit public ≠ "user's own funds" // Without checks, ANYONE withdraws ANYONE's funds } ``` **Detection**: Every state-changing external/public function needs explicit permission checks. ### Root Cause 3: Undefined Trust Boundary Who is "admin"? What can they do? Often undocumented. ```solidity // VULNERABLE: Admin powers undefined function emergencyWithdraw() external onlyAdmin { // Can admin steal all user funds? // Is this documented? Intended? } ``` **Detection**: Map all admin powers. Flag undocumented capabilities as centralization risks. ### Root Cause 4: Broken Permission Hierarchy Admin can create admins → single key compromise = total system takeover. ```solidity // VULNERABLE: Flat admin hierarchy function addAdmin(address newAdmin) external onlyAdmin { admins[newAdmin] = true; // @audit Compromised admin adds attacker } ``` **Detection**: Trace role grant paths. Flag self-granting or circular hierarchies. --- ## The Permission Matrix (Core Artifact) Build this for every contract: | Contract | Function | Sensitivity | Required Role | Actual Check | Gap? | |----------|----------|-------------|---------------|--------------|------| | Vault | withdraw | CRITICAL | User (own funds) | None | **YES** | | Vault | setFee | HIGH | Admin | onlyOwner | No | | Vault | pause | HIGH | Guardian | onlyAdmin | **WRONG ROLE** | | Token | mint | CRITICAL | Minter | None | **YES** | ### Sensitivity Classification | Level | Examples | Impact if Missing | |-------|----------|-------------------| | **CRITICAL** | withdraw, transfer, mint, upgrade | Direct fund loss | | **HIGH** | pause, setFee, setOracle | Protocol malfunction | | **MEDIUM** | setParameter, whitelist | Degraded operation | | **LOW** | view, pure functions | Information leak | --- ## Detection Patterns ### Pattern 1: Missing Access Control **Root Cause**: Intent-Implementation Gap ```solidity // VULNERABLE: Anyone can call function setPrice(uint256 newPrice) external { price = newPrice; // @audit Anyone can manipulate price! } function withdrawAll() external { payable(msg.sender).transfer(address(this).balance); // @audit No modifier! } ``` **Search Queries**: ``` Grep("function.*external(?!.*view)(?!.*pure)", glob="**/*.sol") Grep("function.*public(?!.*view)(?!.*pure)", glob="**/*.sol") ``` **Verification Questions**: - Does this function modify state? - Is there a modifier or require statement? - What is the intended caller? ### Pattern 2: Privilege Escalation **Root Cause**: Broken Permission Hierarchy ```solidity // VULNERABLE: Admin can add arbitrary admins function addAdmin(address newAdmin) external { require(admins[msg.sender], "Not admin"); admins[newAdmin] = true; // @audit Compromised admin adds attacker } // VULNERABLE: Self-grant role function grantRole(bytes32 role, address account) public { _grantRole(role, account); // @audit No permission check! } ``` **Search Queries**: ``` Grep("grantRole|addAdmin|setAdmin", glob="**/*.sol") Grep("_setupRole|_grantRole", glob="**/*.sol") ``` **Verification Questions**: - Can a role grant itself or other roles? - Is there a role hierarchy (admin > moderator > user)? - What happens if the top role is compromised? ### Pattern 3: tx.origin Phishing **Root Cause**: Confusing transaction origin with message sender ```solidity // VULNERABLE: Phishing via malicious contract function withdraw() external { require(tx.origin == owner); // @audit Phishing target! // Attacker tricks owner to call malicious contract // Malicious contract calls this function // tx.origin is still owner! } ``` **Search Queries**: ``` Grep("tx\\.origin", glob="**/*.sol") ``` **Verification Questions**: - Is tx.origin used for authorization? - Can an attacker trick the owner into calling a malicious contract? ### Pattern 4: Incorrect Permission Logic (OR vs AND) **Root Cause**: Logic error in permission checks ```solidity // VULNERABLE: Should be AND, not OR function sensitiveAction() external { require(hasRole(ADMIN) || hasRole(GUARDIAN)); // @audit OR allows either // Should require BOTH roles for high-sensitivity actions } // Also check for inverted logic function withdraw() external { require(!blacklisted[msg.sender]); // What if blacklist is empty? } ``` **Search Queries**: ``` Grep("require.*\\|\\|", glob="**/*.sol") Grep("require.*&&", glob="**/*.sol") ``` **Verification Questions**: - Should this be AND or OR? - What is the minimum permission needed? - Can the condition be bypassed? ### Pattern 5: Missing Two-Step Transfer **Root Cause**: No confirmation for critical ownership changes ```solidity // VULNERABLE: Single transaction transfer function transferOwnership(address newOwner) external onlyOwner { owner = newOwner; // @audit Typo in address = permanent loss } // SECURE: Two-step pattern function transferOwnership(address newOwner) external onlyOwner { pendingOwner = newOwner; } function acceptOwnership() external { require(msg.sender == pendingOwner); owner = pendingOwner; } ``` **Search Queries**: ``` Grep("transferOwnership|changeOwner|setOwner", glob="**/*.sol") Grep("pendingOwner|acceptOwnership", glob="**/*.sol") ``` **Verification Questions**: - Is ownership transfer single-step or two-step? - What happens if wrong address is provided? - Is there a timelock for ownership changes? ### Pattern 6: Role Hierarchy Exploitation (OpenZeppelin) **Root Cause**: Misunderstanding of AccessControl patterns ```solidity // VULNERABLE: DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE can grant any role // If compromised, attacker controls everything contract Vault is AccessControl { bytes32 public constant ADMIN_ROLE = keccak256("ADMIN"); constructor() { _grantRole(DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE, msg.sender); _grantRole(ADMIN_ROLE, msg.sender); // @audit DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE can grant ADMIN_ROLE to anyone } } ``` **Search Queries**: ``` Grep("DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE|AccessControl", glob="**/*.sol") Grep("_setRoleAdmin|getRoleAdmin", glob="**/*.sol") ``` **Verification Questions**: - Who holds DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE? - Is there a two-step admin transfer? - Can admin roles be renounced? --- ## Line-by-Line Verification Checklist For each external/public function: - [ ] Does this function modify state? - [ ] Is there a modifier applied? - [ ] Does the modifier check the correct role? - [ ] Can the require/revert condition be bypassed? - [ ] Who is the intended caller? Is this documented? - [ ] What is the worst case if anyone can call this? --- ## Centralization Risk Assessment Document admin powers that can harm users: | Admin Power | Risk Level | Impact | |-------------|------------|--------| | Pause withdrawals | High | Users locked out | | Change fee to 100% | Critical | Rug pull | | Upgrade implementation | Critical | Arbitrary code execution | | Mint unlimited tokens | Critical | Inflation attack | | Whitelist addresses | Medium | Censorship | | Change oracle | Critical | Price manipulation | **Flag as finding if**: - Power is undocumented - No timelock protection - Single key (not multisig) --- ## Search Query Reference ``` # Find all entry points Grep("function.*external|function.*public", glob="**/*.sol") # Find modifiers Grep("modifier\\s+\\w+", glob="**/*.sol") Grep("onlyOwner|onlyAdmin|only\\w+", glob="**/*.sol") # Find role management Grep("grantRole|revokeRole|renounceRole", glob="**/*.sol") Grep("transferOwnership|acceptOwnership", glob="**/*.sol") # Find dangerous patterns Grep("tx\\.origin", glob="**/*.sol") Grep("selfdestruct|delegatecall", glob="**/*.sol") ``` --- ## Rationalization Table (Reject These Excuses) | Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "It's an internal function" | Internal functions can be called via public entry points | | "Only admin can call this" | Admin keys get compromised; document the risk | | "This is by design" | Document it as centralization risk if undocumented | | "Low likelihood" | Access control bugs caused $953M in losses | | "I'll check later" | Check NOW or miss critical vulnerabilities | | "The modifier exists somewhere" | Verify it's actually applied to THIS function | | "Frontend prevents this" | On-chain must be secure standalone |
Auf GitHub ansehen