Defying the Odds: Solana's Unexpected Resilience in Spite of the Security Challenges Faced by Developers
Authors:
Sébastien Andreina,
Tobias Cloosters,
Lucas Davi,
Jens-Rene Giesen,
Marco Gutfleisch,
Ghassan Karame,
Alena Naiakshina,
Houda Naji
Abstract:
Solana gained considerable attention as one of the most popular blockchain platforms for deploying decentralized applications. Compared to Ethereum, however, we observe a lack of research on how Solana smart contract developers handle security, what challenges they encounter, and how this affects the overall security of the ecosystem. To address this, we conducted the first comprehensive study on…
▽ More
Solana gained considerable attention as one of the most popular blockchain platforms for deploying decentralized applications. Compared to Ethereum, however, we observe a lack of research on how Solana smart contract developers handle security, what challenges they encounter, and how this affects the overall security of the ecosystem. To address this, we conducted the first comprehensive study on the Solana platform consisting of a 90-minute Solana smart contract code review task with 35 participants followed by interviews with a subset of seven participants. Our study shows, quite alarmingly, that none of the participants could detect all important security vulnerabilities in a code review task and that 83% of the participants are likely to release vulnerable smart contracts. Our study also sheds light on the root causes of developers' challenges with Solana smart contract development, suggesting the need for better security guidance and resources. In spite of these challenges, our automated analysis on currently deployed Solana smart contracts surprisingly suggests that the prevalence of vulnerabilities - especially those pointed out as the most challenging in our developer study - is below 0.3%. We explore the causes of this counter-intuitive resilience and show that frameworks, such as Anchor, are aiding Solana developers in deploying secure contracts.
△ Less
Submitted 19 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
"Make Them Change it Every Week!": A Qualitative Exploration of Online Developer Advice on Usable and Secure Authentication
Authors:
Jan H. Klemmer,
Marco Gutfleisch,
Christian Stransky,
Yasemin Acar,
M. Angela Sasse,
Sascha Fahl
Abstract:
Usable and secure authentication on the web and beyond is mission-critical. While password-based authentication is still widespread, users have trouble dealing with potentially hundreds of online accounts and their passwords. Alternatives or extensions such as multi-factor authentication have their own challenges and find only limited adoption. Finding the right balance between security and usabil…
▽ More
Usable and secure authentication on the web and beyond is mission-critical. While password-based authentication is still widespread, users have trouble dealing with potentially hundreds of online accounts and their passwords. Alternatives or extensions such as multi-factor authentication have their own challenges and find only limited adoption. Finding the right balance between security and usability is challenging for developers. Previous work found that developers use online resources to inform security decisions when writing code. Similar to other areas, lots of authentication advice for developers is available online, including blog posts, discussions on Stack Overflow, research papers, or guidelines by institutions like OWASP or NIST.
We are the first to explore developer advice on authentication that affects usable security for end-users. Based on a survey with 18 professional web developers, we obtained 406 documents and qualitatively analyzed 272 contained pieces of advice in depth. We aim to understand the accessibility and quality of online advice and provide insights into how online advice might contribute to (in)secure and (un)usable authentication. We find that advice is scattered and that finding recommendable, consistent advice is a challenge for developers, among others. The most common advice is for password-based authentication, but little for more modern alternatives. Unfortunately, many pieces of advice are debatable (e.g., complex password policies), outdated (e.g., enforcing regular password changes), or contradicting and might lead to unusable or insecure authentication. Based on our findings, we make recommendations for developers, advice providers, official institutions, and academia on how to improve online advice for developers.
△ Less
Submitted 26 November, 2023; v1 submitted 1 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
