MarketTakers/arbiter
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 27 Pull Requests 4 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Client identity rebinding #55

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-04-05 16:09:27 +00:00 by Skipper · 1 comment
Skipper commented 2026-04-05 16:09:27 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Info

Severity: CRITICAL
Attack vector: offline

Impact

Allows an attacker to rebind client identity and inherit signing permissions associated with existing grants.

Description

Neither program_client nor evm_wallet_access is covered by an integrity envelope. This lets an attacker tamper with client identity or client-to-wallet bindings without invalidating grant verification.

Example flow

  1. Modify program_client.public_key to an attacker-controlled key, or change an existing evm_wallet_access.client_id to the attacker's client.
  2. Authenticate as that client.
  3. Reuse the existing wallet access and grants tied to the unchanged access row.
  4. Request signatures within the grant's limits.

Mitigation

Add integrity protection to both tables and verify integrity before authentication and before access checks.

# Info **Severity**: **CRITICAL** Attack vector: offline ## Impact Allows an attacker to rebind client identity and inherit signing permissions associated with existing grants. ## Description Neither `program_client` nor `evm_wallet_access` is covered by an integrity envelope. This lets an attacker tamper with client identity or client-to-wallet bindings without invalidating grant verification. ## Example flow 1. Modify `program_client.public_key` to an attacker-controlled key, or change an existing `evm_wallet_access.client_id` to the attacker's client. 2. Authenticate as that client. 3. Reuse the existing wallet access and grants tied to the unchanged access row. 4. Request signatures within the grant's limits. ## Mitigation Add integrity protection to both tables and verify integrity before authentication and before access checks.
CleverWild added the
Kind
Security
 label 2026-04-05 16:09:54 +00:00
Skipper commented 2026-04-06 16:26:33 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

#78

#78
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
Compat
Breaking
Breaking change that won't be backward compatible
Difficulty
High
3
Hard difficulty. Experience needed to fix: A lot.
Difficulty
Low
1
Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.
Difficulty
Medium
2
Medium difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Intermediate.
Kind
Bug
This is a bug.
Kind
Enhancement
Improve existing functionality.
Kind
Feature
New functionality
Kind
RFC
Request for comments
Kind
Security
This is security issue
Kind
Testing
This is testing issue.
Kind
Tracking issue
An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC
Priority
Critical
1
The priority is critical
Priority
High
2
The priority is high
Priority
Low
4
The priority is low
Priority
Medium
3
The priority is medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
1
Issue has been confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
2
This issue or pull request already exists
Reviewed
Invalid
3
Invalid issue
Reviewed
Pending
4
Requires review by dev
Reviewed
Won't Fix
3
This issue won't be fixed
Status
Abandoned
3
Somebody has started to work on this but abandoned work
Status
Blocked
1
Something is blocking this issue or pull request
Status
Need More Info
2
Feedback is required to reproduce issue or to continue work
No Label
Kind
Security
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
CleverWild Skipper goodvin testuser
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: MarketTakers/arbiter#55
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?