plugins/building-secure-contracts/skills/algorand-vulnerability-scanner/SKILL.md
Scans Algorand smart contracts for 11 common vulnerabilities including rekeying attacks, unchecked transaction fees, missing field validations, and access control issues. Use when auditing Algorand projects (TEAL/PyTeal).
npx skillsauth add trailofbits/skills algorand-vulnerability-scannerInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Systematically scan Algorand smart contracts (TEAL and PyTeal) for platform-specific security vulnerabilities documented in Trail of Bits' "Not So Smart Contracts" database. This skill encodes 11 critical vulnerability patterns unique to Algorand's transaction model.
.teal.py with PyTeal imports# PyTeal indicators
from pyteal import *
from algosdk import *
# Common patterns
Txn, Gtxn, Global, InnerTxnBuilder
OnComplete, ApplicationCall, TxnType
@router.method, @Subroutine
approval_program.py / clear_program.pycontract.teal / signature.tealpip3 install tealertealer contract.teal --detect allWhen invoked, I will:
When vulnerabilities are found, you'll get a report like this:
=== ALGORAND VULNERABILITY SCAN RESULTS ===
Project: my-algorand-dapp
Files Scanned: 3 (.teal, .py)
Vulnerabilities Found: 2
---
[CRITICAL] Rekeying Attack
File: contracts/approval.py:45
Pattern: Missing RekeyTo validation
Code:
If(Txn.type_enum() == TxnType.Payment,
Seq([
# Missing: Assert(Txn.rekey_to() == Global.zero_address())
App.globalPut(Bytes("balance"), balance + Txn.amount()),
Approve()
])
)
Issue: The contract doesn't validate the RekeyTo field, allowing attackers
to change account authorization and bypass restrictions.
---
## 5. Vulnerability Patterns (11 Patterns)
I check for 11 critical vulnerability patterns unique to Algorand. For detailed detection patterns, code examples, mitigations, and testing strategies, see [VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md](resources/VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md).
### Pattern Summary:
1. **Rekeying Vulnerability** ⚠️ CRITICAL - Unchecked RekeyTo field
2. **Missing Transaction Verification** ⚠️ CRITICAL - No GroupSize/GroupIndex checks
3. **Group Transaction Manipulation** ⚠️ HIGH - Unsafe group transaction handling
4. **Asset Clawback Risk** ⚠️ HIGH - Missing clawback address checks
5. **Application State Manipulation** ⚠️ MEDIUM - Unsafe global/local state updates
6. **Asset Opt-In Missing** ⚠️ HIGH - No asset opt-in validation
7. **Minimum Balance Violation** ⚠️ MEDIUM - Account below minimum balance
8. **Close Remainder To Check** ⚠️ HIGH - Unchecked CloseRemainderTo field
9. **Application Clear State** ⚠️ MEDIUM - Unsafe clear state program
10. **Atomic Transaction Ordering** ⚠️ HIGH - Assuming transaction order
11. **Logic Signature Reuse** ⚠️ HIGH - Logic sigs without uniqueness constraints
For complete vulnerability patterns with code examples, see [VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md](resources/VULNERABILITY_PATTERNS.md).
## 5. Scanning Workflow
### Step 1: Platform Identification
1. Confirm file extensions (`.teal`, `.py`)
2. Identify framework (PyTeal, Beaker, pure TEAL)
3. Determine contract type (stateful application vs smart signature)
4. Locate approval and clear state programs
### Step 2: Static Analysis with Tealer
```bash
# Run Tealer on contract
tealer contract.teal --detect all
# Or specific detectors
tealer contract.teal --detect unprotected-rekey,group-size-check,update-application-check
For each of the 11 vulnerabilities above:
Create checklist for all transaction types used:
Payment Transactions:
Asset Transfers:
Application Calls:
Inner Transactions:
For atomic transaction groups:
Global.group_size() checks## [SEVERITY] Vulnerability Name (e.g., Missing RekeyTo Validation)
**Location**: `contract.teal:45-50` or `approval_program.py:withdraw()`
**Description**:
The contract approves payment transactions without validating the RekeyTo field, allowing an attacker to rekey the account and bypass future authorization checks.
**Vulnerable Code**:
```python
# approval_program.py, line 45
If(Txn.type_enum() == TxnType.Payment,
Approve() # Missing RekeyTo check
)
Attack Scenario:
Recommendation: Add explicit validation of the RekeyTo field:
If(And(
Txn.type_enum() == TxnType.Payment,
Txn.rekey_to() == Global.zero_address()
), Approve(), Reject())
References:
unprotected-rekey
---
## 7. Priority Guidelines
### Critical (Immediate Fix Required)
- Rekeying attacks
- CloseRemainderTo / AssetCloseTo issues
- Access control bypasses
### High (Fix Before Deployment)
- Unchecked transaction fees
- Asset ID validation issues
- Group size validation
- Clear state transaction checks
### Medium (Address in Audit)
- Inner transaction fee issues
- Time-based replay attacks
- DoS via asset opt-in
---
## 8. Testing Recommendations
### Unit Tests Required
- Test each vulnerability scenario with PoC exploit
- Verify fixes prevent exploitation
- Test edge cases (group size = 0, empty addresses, etc.)
### Tealer Integration
```bash
# Add to CI/CD pipeline
tealer approval.teal --detect all --json > tealer-report.json
# Fail build on critical findings
tealer approval.teal --detect all --fail-on critical,high
building-secure-contracts/not-so-smart-contracts/algorand/Before completing Algorand audit, verify ALL items checked:
testing
Draws the 12 Houses of the Zodiac Tarot spread to inject entropy into planning when prompts are vague, ambiguous, or casually delegated. Interprets the spread to guide next steps. Use when the user says 'let fate decide', 'YOLO', 'whatever', 'idk', or other nonchalant phrases, makes Yu-Gi-Oh references, or when you are about to arbitrarily pick between multiple reasonable approaches. Prefer over ask-questions-if-underspecified when the user's tone is casual or playful rather than precision-seeking.
testing
Scans Solana programs for 6 critical vulnerabilities including arbitrary CPI, improper PDA validation, missing signer/ownership checks, and sysvar spoofing. Use when auditing Solana/Anchor programs.
development
Performs comprehensive C/C++ security review for memory corruption, integer overflows, race conditions, and platform-specific vulnerabilities. Use when auditing native C/C++ applications, reviewing daemons or services for memory safety, or hunting integer overflow / use-after-free / race conditions in userspace code.
development
Detects missing zeroization of sensitive data in source code and identifies zeroization removed by compiler optimizations, with assembly-level analysis, and control-flow verification. Use for auditing C/C++/Rust code handling secrets, keys, passwords, or other sensitive data.