Smart Account Proxies like ERC-4337's EntryPoint and Safe{Core} Account Abstraction Stack are not just contracts; they are permissionless execution layers. A single vulnerability here compromises every application built on top, creating a systemic risk that dwarfs a single dApp bug.
wallet-wars-smart-accounts-vs-embedded-wallets
Blog
Why Smart Account Proxies Demand a New Class of Audit
The shift to ERC-4337 smart accounts introduces proxy-based architectures that break traditional audit models. We dissect the unique attack vectors—storage collisions, function selector clashes, initialization hijacking—that standard audits miss, demanding a new security paradigm.
introduction
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Introduction
Smart Account Proxies introduce a new, systemic risk surface that traditional smart contract audits are structurally blind to.
Traditional audits focus on state, verifying a contract's logic in isolation. This fails for proxies, where the critical logic is the interaction between the user's logic contract, the proxy's validation rules, and the bundler's transaction flow. The attack vector is the handshake, not the state machine.
Evidence: The $20M Wintermute hack on Profanity-generated vanity addresses exploited a proxy key management flaw, not the underlying wallet logic. Similarly, early ERC-4337 implementations faced reentrancy in paymaster sponsorships, a risk inherent to the multi-actor relayed transaction model.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Core Argument
Smart account proxies introduce a new, dynamic attack surface that traditional smart contract audits are structurally blind to.
Smart accounts are not contracts. They are proxy patterns with mutable logic pointers. A traditional audit of the implementation contract is a static snapshot of code, but the upgrade path is the vulnerability. The security model shifts from verifying fixed code to verifying a governance process and the integrity of every future code change.
The user is the new protocol. With ERC-4337 and account abstraction, transaction logic moves from the application layer (like Uniswap) into the user's wallet. Auditing a dApp is no longer sufficient; you must audit the intent validation rules within smart accounts from providers like Safe{Wallet}, Biconomy, or ZeroDev, which now dictate cross-chain and cross-protocol interactions.
Session keys create persistent risk. To enable gasless transactions or automated actions, users delegate temporary signing power. An audit must now evaluate the key management logic and the revocation mechanisms within the account, a threat model akin to auditing a custom multisig with time-based permissions, which standard tools miss.
Evidence: The Diamond Proxy pattern (EIP-2535), used by projects like Aave, demonstrates the audit complexity of modular, upgradeable systems. Each new "facet" (logic module) added post-audit requires a new security assessment of its integration, not just its isolated code—a continuous process, not a one-time event.
key-trends
WHY SMART ACCOUNT PROXIES DEMAND A NEW CLASS OF AUDIT
The Proxy-First Landscape
Smart accounts separate logic from assets via a proxy pattern, creating a novel and systemic risk surface that traditional contract audits fail to address.
01
The EntryPoint is a Systemic Single Point of Failure
Every ERC-4337 and ERC-6900 user operation funnels through a singleton EntryPoint contract. A critical bug here could compromise millions of accounts and billions in TVL across all compliant smart accounts, not just a single protocol.
- Global Attack Vector: Unlike a dApp hack, this is a chain-level catastrophe.
- Audit Scope Failure: Traditional audits focus on isolated contracts, not this network-wide coordination layer.
1 Contract
Global Chokepoint
$B+ TVL
Systemic Risk
02
The Upgrade Path is a Governance Minefield
Proxy logic is mutable, often controlled by multi-sigs or DAOs. This creates a persistent risk of malicious upgrades or governance attacks long after deployment.
- Time-Bomb Risk: A benign team today could be replaced by a malicious actor tomorrow.
- Audit Shelf-Life: A one-time audit is meaningless; continuous monitoring of proposal logic and signer sets is required.
∞ Duration
Perpetual Risk
~3-21 Days
Upgrade Timelock
03
Modular Plugins Create Unforeseen Interactions
Accounts like Safe{Core} and ZeroDev allow dynamic plugin installation. The security model shifts from a single codebase to a composability graph of untrusted modules.
- Combinatorial Explosions: Auditing every possible plugin interaction is impossible.
- New Attack Surface: A malicious or buggy plugin can hijack the proxy's authority, a risk absent in EOAs.
10+
Plugin Standards
n! Interactions
State Space
04
The Fallback Handler is a Silent Backdoor
Most proxy implementations include a fallback/receive function delegate. This often-overlooked path can be configured to route unexpected calls or funds to an arbitrary handler, creating a hidden privilege escalation.
- Stealth Risk: Not part of main logic flows, easily missed in review.
- Bypass Vector: Can circumvent intended security checks and upgrade guards.
1 Function
Critical Surface
High Severity
If Exploited
05
Gas Abstraction Breaks Economic Security Assumptions
Paymasters and bundlers pay for users, decoupling transaction cost from sender. This enables spam attacks and resource exhaustion at near-zero cost to the attacker, breaking the fundamental economic security of Ethereum.
- Sybil Flooding: An attacker can spam the mempool with invalid ops, DoSing the network.
- Audit Blindspot: Economic modeling and mempool dynamics are outside standard smart contract audit scope.
$0 Cost
To Attack
~500ms
Mempool Latency
06
Cross-Chain State Sync is a Consensus Nightmare
Smart accounts aiming for omnichain presence (via LayerZero, CCIP, Wormhole) must synchronize state across VMs. A desynchronized upgrade or bridge compromise can fork account state, leading to double-spends or frozen funds.
- Cross-VM Complexity: Logic must be verified across heterogeneous environments (EVM, SVM, Move).
- Bridge Dependency: Inherits the security floor of the weakest bridging primitive.
5+ Chains
Typical Deployment
Weakest Link
Security Model
SMART ACCOUNT ARCHITECTURE
Proxy Pattern Risk Matrix
Comparing the security and operational trade-offs of different proxy patterns used in smart account implementations like ERC-4337, Safe, and Biconomy.
| Risk Vector / Feature | Transparent Proxy (e.g., early Safe) | UUPS Proxy (e.g., many ERC-4337 accounts) | Minimal Proxy / Beacon Proxy (e.g., Clone Factory patterns) |
|---|---|---|---|
Upgrade Function in Logic Contract | |||
Admin Key Single Point of Failure | |||
Proxy Storage Slot Clash Risk | High | Controlled | None |
Initialization Re-Entrancy Risk | High (if unprotected) | High (if unprotected) | N/A (immutable) |
Gas Overhead per User Deployment | ~500k gas | ~500k gas | < 100k gas |
Requires Custom Security Audit | |||
Can Self-Destruct Logic Layer | |||
Implementation Lock-in Post-Deploy |
deep-dive
THE VULNERABILITY
Anatomy of a Proxy-Specific Attack
Smart account proxy architectures introduce novel attack vectors that traditional contract audits systematically miss.
The proxy is the attack surface. Audits focus on the implementation logic, but the proxy's upgrade mechanism is the primary failure point. Attackers target the proxy's admin function or storage layout to hijack the entire account.
Upgrade logic is non-standard. Unlike a standard ERC-1967 proxy, smart accounts like Safe{Wallet} and Biconomy implement custom, user-configurable upgrade paths. This creates a combinatorial explosion of untested security assumptions.
Storage collisions are inevitable. A malicious upgrade can deploy a new implementation with a mismatched storage layout, corrupting critical user data like ownership or transaction nonces. This is a silent failure.
Evidence: The 2023 Rabby Wallet phishing attack exploited a Safe{Wallet} compatibility issue, not a logic bug. It bypassed signature verification by manipulating the proxy's transaction simulation, a vector invisible to standard analysis.
risk-analysis
WHY SMART ACCOUNT PROXIES DEMAND A NEW CLASS OF AUDIT
The Unaudited Attack Surface
ERC-4337's account abstraction introduces a proxy-based architecture, creating novel attack vectors that traditional smart contract audits are ill-equipped to catch.
01
The EntryPoint is a Global Single Point of Failure
Every ERC-4337 user operation is validated and executed through a singleton EntryPoint contract. A critical bug here is a systemic risk for the entire ecosystem.
- Affects all wallets built on that standard, not just one protocol.
- Upgradability risk is now a governance nightmare affecting millions of accounts.
- Audit scope must expand from single-contract logic to ecosystem-wide failure modes.
1 Contract
Global SPOF
All Wallets
Attack Surface
02
Bundler Logic is Off-Chain and Unverified
Bundlers are the off-chain actors who package user operations. Their logic for ordering, simulating, and including ops is a critical, unaudited component.
- MEV extraction vectors are opaque (e.g., frontrunning user ops).
- Censorship risk is delegated to an off-chain service.
- Audit must now cover relayer incentives and simulation integrity, akin to validator client audits.
0%
On-Chain Code
High
Trust Assumption
03
Paymaster Dependency Creates New Oracle Risk
Paymasters sponsor gas fees, often based on off-chain data (e.g., exchange rates). This creates a new class of oracle manipulation attacks.
- Sponsorship logic can be gamed if price feeds are stale or manipulated.
- Recursive liquidity attacks possible if paymaster holds user funds.
- Audit must now validate external data integration and circuit breaker mechanisms.
New Vector
Oracle Attack
Gas & Assets
Dual Risk
04
Signature Aggregator Complexity Explodes
To save gas, signatures can be aggregated off-chain and verified once. This introduces complex cryptographic logic and new consensus requirements.
- Non-standard crypto (BLS, Schnorr) increases implementation risk.
- Aggregator fault can invalidate a batch of user ops.
- Audit must now include cryptographic review and batch failure analysis.
High
Crypto Risk
Batch-Wide
Failure Impact
05
Upgradeable Proxies Multiply Admin Key Risk
Most smart accounts use upgradeable proxy patterns (e.g., UUPS). Each user's account logic can be upgraded, often by the user themselves, creating a dynamic attack surface.
- Social engineering targets the upgrade transaction.
- Logic hijacking if upgrade mechanism is flawed.
- Audit must now assess key management workflows and timelock safety for millions of upgradeable endpoints.
Per Account
Upgrade Risk
Dynamic
Attack Surface
06
Simulation vs. Execution Inconsistency
Bundlers simulate ops off-chain before submitting. Any mismatch between simulation and actual execution results in failed ops and lost gas.
- State-based race conditions are notoriously hard to simulate perfectly.
- Gas estimation errors lead to user frustration and wasted funds.
- Audit must now test the simulation engine itself, a task for specialized security firms like ChainSecurity or Trail of Bits.
Revert Risk
Per Operation
Critical
UX Failure
counter-argument
THE COMPOSITION FALLACY
The Flawed Rebuttal: "We Use Audited Libraries"
Auditing individual smart account components ignores the emergent risks of their novel integration.
Audited components create unaudited systems. A proxy wallet using audited libraries from OpenZeppelin and Safe is a new, distinct contract. Its security depends on the integration logic, which remains untested.
Proxy patterns introduce unique attack vectors. The upgrade mechanism, delegatecall flow, and fallback handler create a novel state machine. This surface area is absent from the original library audits.
Standard audits miss proxy-specific logic. Firms like Trail of Bits and CertiK audit for generic vulnerabilities. They do not model the custom execution flow of an ERC-4337 Bundler or a multi-chain recovery module.
Evidence: The Poly Network hack exploited a flaw in the cross-chain manager contract, a composition of otherwise sound components. This pattern risk is endemic to smart account architecture.
takeaways
BEYOND BYTECODE
The New Audit Checklist
Smart account proxies like ERC-4337 bundlers and 7579 modules shift critical logic off-chain, demanding audits that scrutinize the entire transaction lifecycle.
01
The Bundler as a New Attack Surface
ERC-4337 bundlers are centralized lynchpins with unchecked discretion. They can censor, front-run, or reorder UserOperations, breaking atomicity guarantees.\n- Audit Focus: Mempool privacy, transaction ordering logic, and DoS resistance.\n- Key Metric: A malicious bundler can extract MEV from 100% of account abstraction traffic.
1 of N
Single Point of Failure
100%
Traffic Control
02
Module Governance & Upgrade Escalation
Smart accounts delegate authority to external modules (e.g., Safe{Wallet} Zodiac, Biconomy). A malicious or buggy module has full asset control.\n- Audit Focus: Module initialization, permission escalation paths, and timelock bypasses.\n- Key Entity: Review EIP-6900 validator compatibility to prevent governance hijacks.
Unlimited
Escalation Risk
EIP-6900
Critical Standard
03
Cross-Chain Intent Orchestration
Accounts using CCIP Read or LayerZero for cross-chain verification introduce oracle-level trust assumptions. A corrupted state root or proof invalidates all security.\n- Audit Focus: Light client verification, proof aggregation, and fallback mechanisms.\n- Key Risk: A failure in Axelar or Wormhole can compromise the entire account state.
Oracle Trust
New Assumption
Multi-Chain
Failure Domain
04
Paymaster Economic Viability
Paymasters sponsor gas, creating insolvency and incentive risks. They must be audited as mini-Defi protocols, with checks for deposit management and relay rate-limiting.\n- Audit Focus: Gas price oracle manipulation, deposit withdrawal logic, and sponsorship policies.\n- Key Metric: A 10 Gwei spike can drain a paymaster's $1M stake in minutes.
$1M+
Stake at Risk
Gas Oracle
Critical Dependency
05
Session Key Replay & Boundaries
ERC-7377 session keys enable gasless transactions but have fuzzy security boundaries. Audits must map authorized actions to precise constraints to prevent scope creep.\n- Audit Focus: Replay protection across chains, spend limits per session, and revocation latency.\n- Key Flaw: A session signed for Uniswap on Base could be replayed for a drainer on Polygon.
Cross-Chain
Replay Risk
ERC-7377
New Vector
06
The Fallback Handler Blow-up
The fallback function in a proxy is a catch-all attack vector. Malicious calldata can bypass modular guards and directly trigger self-destruct or ownership transfers.\n- Audit Focus: Fallback function isolation, delegatecall restrictions, and storage collision maps.\n- Key Finding: ~15% of early Safe{Wallet} audits missed critical fallback handler vulnerabilities.
Catch-All
Attack Vector
~15%
Miss Rate
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall