mirror of
https://github.com/ethereum/solidity
synced 2023-10-03 13:03:40 +00:00
Security Considerations
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
|
||||
#######################
|
||||
Security Considerations
|
||||
#######################
|
||||
|
||||
While it is usually quite easy to build software that works as expected,
|
||||
it is much harder to check that nobody can use it in a way that was **not** anticipated.
|
||||
|
||||
In Solidity, this is even more important because you can use smart contracts
|
||||
to handle tokens or even more valuable things and every execution of a smart
|
||||
contract happens in public as is mostly open source.
|
||||
|
||||
Of course you always have to consider how much is at stake:
|
||||
You can compare a smart contract with a web service that is open to the
|
||||
public (and thus also to malicous actors) and perhaps even open source.
|
||||
If you only store your grocery list on that web service, you might not have
|
||||
take too much care, but if you manage your bank account using that web service,
|
||||
you should be more careful.
|
||||
|
||||
This section will list some pitfalls and general security recommendations but
|
||||
can of course never be complete. Also keep in mind that even if your
|
||||
smart contract code is bug-free, the compiler or the platform itself might
|
||||
have a bug.
|
||||
|
||||
As always with open source documentation, please help us extend this section
|
||||
(especially, some examples would not hurt)!
|
||||
|
||||
********
|
||||
Pitfalls
|
||||
********
|
||||
|
||||
Private Information and Randomness
|
||||
==================================
|
||||
|
||||
Everything you use in a smart contract is publicly visible, even
|
||||
local variables and state variables marked ``private``.
|
||||
|
||||
Using random numbers in smart contracts is quite tricky if you do not want
|
||||
miners to be able to cheat.
|
||||
|
||||
Re-Entrancy
|
||||
===========
|
||||
|
||||
Any interaction from a contract (A) with another contract (B) and any transfer
|
||||
of Ether hands over control to that contract (B). This makes it possible for B
|
||||
to call back into A before this interaction is completed. To give an example,
|
||||
the following code contains a bug (it is just a snippet and not a
|
||||
complete contract):
|
||||
|
||||
::
|
||||
|
||||
// THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS A BUG - DO NOT USE
|
||||
contract Fund {
|
||||
/// Mapping of ether shares of the contract.
|
||||
mapping(address => uint) shares;
|
||||
/// Withdraw your share.
|
||||
function withdraw() {
|
||||
if (msg.sender.send(shares[msg.sender]))
|
||||
shares[msg.sender] = 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
The problem is not too serious here because of the limited gas as part
|
||||
of ``send``, but it still exposes a weakness: Ether transfer always
|
||||
includes code execution, so the recipient could be a contract that calls
|
||||
back into ``withdraw``. This would enable it to get a multiple refund and
|
||||
basically retrieve all the Ether in the contract.
|
||||
|
||||
To avoid re-entrancy, you can use the Checks-Effects-Interactions pattern as
|
||||
outlined further below:
|
||||
|
||||
::
|
||||
|
||||
contract Fund {
|
||||
/// Mapping of ether shares of the contract.
|
||||
mapping(address => uint) shares;
|
||||
/// Withdraw your share.
|
||||
function withdraw() {
|
||||
var share = shares[msg.sender];
|
||||
shares[msg.sender] = 0;
|
||||
if (!msg.sender.send(share))
|
||||
throw;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Note that re-entrancy is not only an effect of Ether transfer but of any
|
||||
function call on another contract. Furthermore, you also have to take
|
||||
multi-contract situations into account. A called contract could modify the
|
||||
state of another contract you depend on.
|
||||
|
||||
Gas Limit and Loops
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
Loops that do not have a fixed number of iterations, e.g. loops that depends on storage values, have to be used carefully:
|
||||
Due to the block gas limit, transactions can only consume a certain amount of gas. Either explicitly or just due to
|
||||
normal operation, the number of iterations in a loop can grow beyond the block gas limit, which can cause the complete
|
||||
contract to be stalled at a certain point. This does not apply at full extent to ``constant`` functions that are only executed
|
||||
to read data from the blockchain. Still, such functions may be called by other contracts as part of on-chain operations
|
||||
and stall those. Please be explicit about such cases in the documentation of your contracts.
|
||||
|
||||
Sending and Receiving Ether
|
||||
===========================
|
||||
|
||||
- If a contract receives Ether (without a function being called), the fallback function is executed. The contract can only rely
|
||||
on the "gas stipend" (2300 gas) being available to it at that time. This stipend is not enough to access storage in any way.
|
||||
To be sure that your contract can receive Ether in that way, check the gas requirements of the fallback function
|
||||
(for example in the "details" section in browser-solidity).
|
||||
|
||||
- If you want to send ether using ``address.send``, there are certain details to be aware of:
|
||||
|
||||
1. If the recipient is a contract, it causes its fallback function to be executed which can in turn call back into the sending contract
|
||||
2. Sending Ether can fail due to the call depth going above 1024. Since the caller is in total control of the call
|
||||
depth, they can force the transfer to fail, so make sure to always check the return value of ``send``. Better yet,
|
||||
write your contract using a pattern where the recipient can withdraw Ether instead.
|
||||
3. Sending Ether can also fail because the recipient runs out of gas (either explicitly by using ``throw`` or
|
||||
because the operation is just too expensive). If the return value of ``send`` is checked, this might provide a
|
||||
means for the recipient to block progress in the sending contract. Again, the best practise here is to use
|
||||
a "withdraw" pattern instead of a "send" pattern.
|
||||
|
||||
Callstack Depth
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
External function calls can fail any time because they exceed the maximum
|
||||
call stack of 1024. In such situations, Solidity throws an exception.
|
||||
Malicious actors might be able to force the call stack to a high value
|
||||
before they interact with your contract.
|
||||
|
||||
Minor Details
|
||||
=============
|
||||
|
||||
- In ``for (var i = 0; i < arrayName.length; i++) { ... }``, the type of ``i`` will be ``uint8``, because this is the smallest type that is required to hold the value ``0``. If the array has more than 255 elements, the loop will not terminate.
|
||||
- The ``constant`` keyword is currently not enforced by the compiler.
|
||||
Furthermore, it is not enforced by the EVM, so a contract function that "claims"
|
||||
to be constant might still cause changes to the state.
|
||||
- Types that do not occupy the full 32 bytes might contain "dirty higher order bits".
|
||||
This is especially important if you access ``msg.data`` - it poses a malleability risk.
|
||||
|
||||
***************
|
||||
Recommendations
|
||||
***************
|
||||
|
||||
Restrict the Amount of Ether
|
||||
============================
|
||||
|
||||
Restrict the amount of Ether (or other tokens) that can be stored in a smart
|
||||
contract. If your source code, the compiler or the platform has a bug, these
|
||||
funds might be gone. If you want to limit your loss, limit the amount of Ether.
|
||||
|
||||
Keep it Small and Modular
|
||||
=========================
|
||||
|
||||
Keep your contracts small and easily understandable. Single out unrelated
|
||||
functionality in other contracts or into libraries. General recommendations
|
||||
about source code quality of course apply: Limit the amount of local variables,
|
||||
the length of functions and so on. Document your functions so that others
|
||||
can see what your intention was and whether it is different than what the code does.
|
||||
|
||||
Program in Checks-Effects-Interactions-way
|
||||
===========================================
|
||||
|
||||
Most functions will first perform some checks (who called the function,
|
||||
are the arguments in range, did they send enough Ether, does the person
|
||||
have tokens, ...). These checks should be done first.
|
||||
|
||||
As the second step, if all checks passed, effects to the state variables
|
||||
of the current contract should be made. Interaction with other contracts
|
||||
should be the very last step in any function.
|
||||
|
||||
Early contracts delayed some effects and waited for external function
|
||||
calls to return in a non-error state. This is often a serious mistake,
|
||||
because of the re-entrancy problem explained above.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that also calls to known contracts might in turn cause calls to
|
||||
unknown contracts, so it is probably better to just always apply this pattern.
|
||||
|
||||
Include a Failsafe-Mode
|
||||
=======================
|
||||
|
||||
While making your system fully decentralised will remove any intermediary,
|
||||
it might be a good idea, especially for new code, to include some kind
|
||||
of fail-safe-mechanism:
|
||||
|
||||
You can add a function in your smart contract that performs some
|
||||
self-checks like "Has any Ether leaked?",
|
||||
"Is the sum of the tokens equal to the balance of the contract?" or simila things.
|
||||
Keep in mind that you cannot use too much gas for that, so help though off-chain
|
||||
computations might be needed there.
|
||||
|
||||
If the self-check fails, the contract automatically switches into some kind
|
||||
of "failsafe" mode, which e.g. disables most of the features, hands over
|
||||
control to a fixed and trusted third party or just converts the contract into
|
||||
a simple "give me back my money"-contract.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
*******************
|
||||
Formal Verification
|
||||
*******************
|
||||
|
||||
Using formal verification, it is possible to perform an automated mathematical
|
||||
proof that your source code fulfills a certain formal specification.
|
||||
The specification is still formal (just as the source code), but usually much
|
||||
simpler. There is a prototype in Solidity that performs formal verification and
|
||||
it will be better documented soon.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that formal verification itself can only help you understand the
|
||||
difference between what you did (the specification) and how you did it
|
||||
(the actual implementation). You still need to check whether the specification
|
||||
is what you wanted and that you did not miss any unintended effects of it.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user