external-precondition-audit

name	external-precondition-audit
description	Trigger Pattern Any CPI (Cross-Program Invocation) detected in program - Inject Into Breadth agents (merged via M5 hierarchy)

Skill: External Precondition Audit (Solana)

Trigger Pattern: Any CPI (Cross-Program Invocation) detected in program Inject Into: Breadth agents (merged via M5 hierarchy) Finding prefix: [EPA-N] Rules referenced: S1, S3, S5, S9, R1, R4 Constraint: IDL/interface-level inference only -- no production fetch required

invoke|invoke_signed|CpiContext|cpi::|anchor_spl|spl_token|system_program|
associated_token|token_2022|program::invoke

For every CPI target program the protocol invokes:

1. CPI Target Inventory and Validation

CPI Target	Program ID Source	Hardcoded?	Validated Against Constant?	Upgradeable?	Risk if Substituted

Rule S3 check: For each CPI call, is the target program ID:

• Hardcoded as a constant (spl_token::ID, known program address)? -> SAFE
• Read from an account field without validation? -> CRITICAL: attacker substitutes malicious program
• Passed as an AccountInfo and checked via constraint = program.key() == expected_id? -> SAFE if constraint present

Upgradeability assessment: Is the CPI target program upgradeable?

• If YES: its behavior can change after audit. Apply Rule 4 (adversarial assumption).
• If NO (immutable / upgrade authority revoked): behavior is fixed, trust boundary is clear.

2. Signer Privilege Propagation

For each invoke_signed / CPI call, trace signer propagation:

CPI Call	Signers Forwarded	PDA Seeds Used	Should This Signer Be Forwarded?	Privilege Escalation Risk

Checks:

• Does the CPI forward signer privileges that should NOT be forwarded? (e.g., forwarding user signer to an external program that can drain their accounts)
• Are PDA signer seeds constructed correctly? (wrong seeds = wrong PDA = different authority)
• Can an attacker control any of the PDA seed components to derive a different PDA?
• Does invoke_signed pass accounts the CPI target can mutate that should not be mutated?

3. Account Reload After CPI (Rule S5 -- CRITICAL)

For each CPI call that modifies accounts used by subsequent logic:

CPI Call	Accounts Modified by CPI	Reloaded After CPI?	Subsequent Read Location	Stale Data Risk

Rule S5: After a CPI call, any account that the CPI target may have modified MUST be reloaded before the calling program reads it again. Anchor's reload() method handles this. Without reload, the program reads cached (pre-CPI) data.

Attack pattern:

1. Program reads account balance (cached)
2. CPI transfers tokens out of account
3. Program reads account balance again -- gets STALE pre-CPI value
4. Program makes decisions based on stale balance

Check for each CPI:

• All mutable accounts passed to CPI are reloaded after return
• Lamport balances are re-read after CPI (lamports can change via CPI)
• Token account balances are re-read after SPL Token CPI
• If NOT reloaded: trace what stale data is used for and compute impact

4. Return Data Consumption

CPI Call	Return Data Expected	How Protocol Uses Return	Failure Mode if Unexpected

For each return value:

• What happens if CPI returns 0? (division by zero, incorrect accounting)
• What happens if CPI returns MAX_U64? (overflow in subsequent arithmetic)
• What happens if CPI does NOT set return data? (Solana's get_return_data() returns None)
• What happens if the CPI reverts? Does the calling program handle the error or propagate it?

Solana-specific: sol_get_return_data returns the program ID that set the data. Verify the caller checks that the return data comes from the expected program, not a previously-invoked program's stale return data.

• For each external data structure received (Vec, array, Map, list): (a) What ordering/uniqueness does the consuming code assume? (b) Does the external contract's spec guarantee that ordering? (c) What happens if the assumption is violated (unsorted, duplicates, gaps)?

5. State Dependency Mapping

Protocol State	Depends on CPI Target State	External State Can Change Without Our Knowledge?

For each dependency: model what happens when the external state changes between our program's read and use.

Solana-specific concerns:

• Another instruction in the SAME transaction can modify the CPI target's state between our instructions
• An attacker can construct a transaction: [attacker_ix_1 (modify external state)] -> [our_ix (reads stale external state)]
• Oracle accounts (Pyth, Switchboard) can be updated by their respective programs between instructions

5b. Oracle Data Quality Checks (IF Pyth/Switchboard/other oracle consumed)

Oracle Account	Type	Confidence Checked?	Staleness Checked?	First-Update Bypass?	Account Owner Validated?

Checks:

1. Is confidence_interval (Pyth) or deviation threshold (Switchboard) validated before price is used?
2. Is staleness enforced? (publish_time vs Clock::get() compared against max age)
3. Can the first price read bypass confidence/staleness checks? (no prior reference → no comparison baseline)
4. Can the oracle account be substituted with a stale or attacker-controlled account? (check owner == pyth_program_id) Tag: [TRACE:oracle read → confidence={X} vs threshold={Y} → {accepted/rejected}]

6. Lamport Conservation Audit

After each CPI call, verify lamport conservation:

CPI Call	Accounts Passed (Mutable)	Lamports Before	Lamports After	Conservation Checked?

Attack: A malicious CPI target (if program ID is not validated per Section 1) can drain lamports from any mutable account passed to it. Even for trusted CPI targets, verify that lamport changes are expected and accounted for.

Check: For each mutable account passed to CPI:

• Is it acceptable for this account's lamports to change?
• If NOT: is there a post-CPI lamport check?
• If the CPI target is upgradeable: lamport behavior could change in future versions

Finding Template

**ID**: [EPA-N]
**Verdict**: CONFIRMED / PARTIAL / REFUTED / CONTESTED
**Step Execution**: (see checklist below)
**Rules Applied**: [S1:___, S3:___, S5:___, S9:___, R1:___, R4:___]
**Severity**: Critical/High/Medium/Low/Info
**Location**: programs/{program}/src/instructions/{file}.rs:LineN
**Title**: {missing CPI validation / stale data after CPI / privilege escalation}
**Description**: {specific issue with code reference}
**Impact**: {what attacker can achieve via the CPI weakness}

---

Step Execution Checklist (MANDATORY)

Section	Required	Completed?	Notes
1. CPI Target Inventory and Validation	YES		Rule S3 check for every CPI
2. Signer Privilege Propagation	YES		Every invoke_signed traced
3. Account Reload After CPI (Rule S5)	YES		Every mutable account checked
4. Return Data Consumption	IF return data used
5. State Dependency Mapping	YES
5b. Oracle Data Quality Checks	IF oracle consumed		Pyth confidence, staleness, first-update bypass
6. Lamport Conservation Audit	YES		Every mutable account passed to CPI

If any step skipped, document valid reason (N/A, no CPI, no return data, immutable target).