Reentrancy Attacks on Solana: What Developers Need to Know

Originally published at https://anchorscan.ca/blog/reentrancy-attacks-on-solana--what-developers-need-to-know.html?utm_source=devto&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=ans_affiliate&utm_content=hostinger

Reentrancy Attacks on Solana: What Developers Need to Know
Published 2026-04-20 · anchorscan.ca

Reentrancy Attacks on Solana: What Developers Need to Know

Reentrancy attacks have plagued blockchain developers for years, and while Solana's architecture differs significantly from Ethereum's, understanding these vulnerabilities remains crucial for building secure programs. At anchorscan.ca, we've analyzed hundreds of Solana programs and identified key patterns that lead to reentrancy vulnerabilities.

Unlike Ethereum's single-threaded execution model, Solana's parallel processing capabilities create unique attack vectors that developers must understand to build secure applications.

Understanding Reentrancy in the Solana Context

Reentrancy occurs when a function makes an external call to another untrusted contract before resolving its own state changes. In traditional blockchain environments, this allows malicious contracts to "re-enter" the original function and manipulate its state.

Solana's account-based model and Cross-Program Invocations (CPIs) create different but equally dangerous reentrancy scenarios. When your program invokes another program through a CPI, that external program could potentially call back into your program before the original transaction completes.

The key difference lies in Solana's transaction structure: all accounts that will be read or written must be declared upfront. However, this doesn't eliminate reentrancy risks—it transforms them.

Common Reentrancy Patterns in Solana Programs

Several patterns make Solana programs vulnerable to reentrancy attacks:

State Updates After CPIs: The most common vulnerability occurs when programs update critical state after making cross-program invocations. If the external program can somehow trigger another call to your program, it might operate on stale state.

Token Transfer Reentrancy: When transferring SPL tokens, programs often make CPIs to the Token Program. Malicious token programs or program-derived accounts can exploit the window between balance checks and actual transfers.

Account Validation Gaps: Programs that don't properly validate account ownership or program IDs before CPIs create opportunities for attackers to substitute malicious programs that implement reentrancy attacks.

Cross-Program State Dependencies: Programs that rely on external program state without proper synchronization can be manipulated through carefully timed reentrancy attacks.

Real-World Attack Scenarios

Consider a decentralized exchange that processes token swaps. The vulnerable flow might look like this:

User initiates swap of Token A for Token B
Program calculates exchange rate based on current reserves
Program transfers Token A from user via CPI
Malicious token program re-enters the DEX during transfer
Reentrancy call operates on unchanged reserve state
Attacker drains excess tokens before reserves update

Another common scenario involves lending protocols where borrowers can manipulate collateral calculations through reentrancy during liquidation processes.

When testing these scenarios, I use Hostinger VPS for all my projects (affiliate link) to run dedicated Solana validators and testing environments. Their reliable infrastructure ensures consistent testing conditions when analyzing complex reentrancy scenarios.

Detection Techniques and Tools

Identifying reentrancy vulnerabilities requires both automated analysis and manual code review:

Static Analysis: Look for patterns where state modifications occur after CPIs. Search for invoke() or invoke_signed() calls followed by account data mutations or balance updates.

Control Flow Analysis: Map all possible execution paths through your program, paying special attention to branches that contain external calls. Verify that critical state updates happen before any CPIs.

Account Dependency Mapping: Document which accounts your program reads from and writes to, then analyze whether external programs could manipulate these dependencies during execution.

Integration Testing: Create test scenarios with malicious programs that attempt reentrancy during various execution phases. This requires setting up controlled environments that simulate attack conditions.

Prevention Strategies and Best Practices

Preventing reentrancy attacks requires defensive programming practices:

Checks-Effects-Interactions Pattern: Always follow this pattern: validate inputs first, update state second, and interact with external programs last. This ensures your program's state remains consistent even if external calls behave maliciously.

Reentrancy Guards: Implement boolean flags that prevent recursive calls to sensitive functions. Set the guard before external interactions and clear it afterward.

State Commitment: Use Solana's account model to your advantage by committing state changes to accounts before making CPIs. This creates an immutable record that subsequent calls can verify.

Program ID Verification: Always verify that CPIs target legitimate programs. Check program IDs against known addresses and validate account ownership before trusting external responses.

Atomic Operations: Design your program logic to be atomic within instruction boundaries. If an instruction can't complete safely, it should fail entirely rather than leave the system in an inconsistent state.

Advanced Mitigation Techniques

For complex programs, additional security measures become necessary:

Time-lock Mechanisms: Implement delays between critical operations, especially those involving large value transfers or administrative changes.

Multi-signature Requirements: Require multiple signatures for operations that could be exploited through reentrancy, adding an additional layer of validation.

Circuit Breakers: Implement automatic program suspension when unusual activity patterns are detected, such as rapid repeated calls or unexpected state changes.

Formal Verification: For high-value programs, consider formal verification methods that mathematically prove the absence of reentrancy vulnerabilities.

Testing Your Defenses

Regular security testing is essential for maintaining robust reentrancy defenses. Create comprehensive test suites that include:

Malicious programs that attempt reentrancy during various execution phases
Race condition scenarios that exploit timing dependencies
Edge cases involving partially completed transactions
Stress tests with high transaction volumes and concurrent operations

Document all test cases and regularly update them as your program evolves. Security is not a one-time consideration but an ongoing process that requires constant vigilance.

Secure Your Solana Program Today

Reentrancy attacks represent a serious threat to Solana programs, but they're entirely preventable with proper security practices. The key lies in understanding Solana's unique execution model and designing your programs with security as a primary consideration.

Don't wait for an attack to discover vulnerabilities in your code. Get a professional security assessment of your Solana program with our pre-audit service at anchorscan.ca for just 0.1 SOL. Our experienced auditors will identify potential reentrancy vulnerabilities and provide actionable recommendations to secure your program before deployment.

Visit anchorscan.ca today to schedule your pre-audit and protect your users, your reputation, and your project from costly security breaches. In the fast-moving world of DeFi and Web3, proactive security isn't just good practice—it's essential for survival.