NEAR IntentsNEAR Intents Passkeys Pull Request Security Review

Description

Malicious solvers can cause service degradation or denial of service (DoS) to frontends and any systems relying on solver bus data.

Causes That Make This Attack Possible:

• Frontends typically are optimizing to give the best quote to the user
• Solver bus simulates intents and aggregates quotes submitted via websockets
• A time gap exists between the solver bus's intent simulation and user signature submission
• Quote submission to the solver bus is unrestricted
• The failure of one intent causes all other intents to fail:

pub fn execute_signed_intents(                    mut self,                    signed: impl IntoIterator<Item = MultiPayload>,                ) -> Result<Transfers> {                    for signed in signed {                        self.execute_signed_intent(signed)?;                    }                    self.finalize()                }

• An attacker controls multiple solvers with deposited funds for popular token pairs, consistently submitting the best prices. The solver's available funds aren't verified after intent simulation
• The solver bus returns quotes including the attacker's quote. Frontends likely select the attacker's quote due to its superior pricing
• The user signs the transaction and submits it to the smart contract
• A single malicious intent causes the entire transaction to fail, even if other intents were valid, due to the execution loop's error handling
• By repeating this process for each quote request, the attacker prevents reliable intent execution. This risk is heightened during early adoption when solver numbers are limited

Impact

• Reputation damage
• Inability for regular users to execute intents (griefing)

Recommendation

Implement a solver reputation system (possibly using a trusted solver list), economic penalties, and progressive timeout/backoff for unreliable solvers. This could be implemented with the addition of API keys.

Remediation

The NEAR Intents team has acknowledged the issue and will fix it soon by introducing API keys and/or reputaion-based filteting for solvers on Solver Bus level.

Description

It was observed that, anyone can generate a valid P256 key, add their public key through the add_public_key function, sign the required data, and successfully pass the smart contract verification. This effectively allows users to trick the smart contract into believing that an object was signed by a passkey when it wasn't. The significance of this issue depends on whether there's a need to differentiate between passkey and hardware key signatures, or if there are special benefits planned for passkey users.

Impact

Users can fake signatures without utilizing passkeys

Recommendation

To ensure the passkey is genuine and from a verified source, you should:

Offchain - During Registration:

• Obtain the attestation certificate (CA and device) from the blob at https://fidoalliance.org/metadata/ or other sources
• Verify the device's AAGUID, certificate chain, and newly generated public key
• If verification succeeds, call the smart contract to add the public key (consider mapping between AAGUID/credential_id &pubkey). Disable unverified public key additions for P256 signatures

Offchain - During Signing: Sign the intents object without the public_key field and send it to SC

Onchain:

• Verify the flags and attestedData = true, then fetch the stored public key (using credential ID/AAGUID)
• Check the signature against the known public key
• Perform regular verifications (nonce, signer matches public key, etc.)

Remediation

The NEAR Intents team has acknowledged the issue but it won’t be fixed since it is allowed by design.

Description

The Nep413Payload structure and with_callback_url function in Nep413Payload implementation accepts callback URLs without any validation, potentially allowing malicious or unsafe URLs to be passed.

#[near(serializers = [borsh, json])]#[serde(rename_all = "camelCase")]#[derive(Debug, Clone)]pub struct Nep413Payload {    pub message: String,     #[serde_as(as = "Base64")]    pub nonce: [u8; 32],     pub recipient: String,     #[serde(default, skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]    pub callback_url: Option<String>,} // ... existing code ...#[inline]pub fn with_callback_url(mut self, callback_url: String) -> Self {self.callback_url = Some(callback_url);self}

Impact

This allows arbitrary strings to be used as callback URLs, including:

• Dangerous protocols (e.g., file://, data://)
• Malformed URLs
• URLs with null bytes or other control characters

If any off-chain component processes these callback URLs, it could be vulnerable to exploitation.

Recommendation

Implement proper URL validation in the with_callback_url and write a custom deserializer to verify Url on the parsing level in Nep413Payload.

Remediation

The NEAR Intents team has acknowledged the issue but it won’t be fixed since it is allowed by design.

Description

Any signed payload accepts any 32-byte array as a nonce without validating its entropy or randomness.

#[test]fn test_zero_nonce_security() {    let zero_nonce_payload = Nep413Payload {        message: payload.message.clone(),        nonce: [0u8; 32],  // Zero nonce accepted        recipient: payload.recipient.clone(),        callback_url: None,    };}

Impact

If you’re only using the nonce as a once-per-user unique value there are no problems. However, It is still safer and more standard to generate a random nonce of sufficient length (128 bits+) so you avoid accidental collisions and stay in line with typical cryptographic best practices.

Recommendation

Implement proper nonce validation and generation

Remediation

The NEAR Intents team has acknowledged the issue but it won’t be fixed since it is allowed by design.

Description

Each cryptographic curve implements signature malleability differently:

• SeckP: Not Allowed. Uses ecrecover with a true flag to enable malleability checks
• Ed25519: Allowed. Uses env::ed25519_verify
• P256: Allowed. Implements passkey verification without signature malleability checking

The behavior of signature malleability should be unified across all curves. Having consistent security properties would simplify threat modeling, debugging, and tracking.

Impact

While nonces currently protect against replay attacks, disallowing malleability for all curves would be more secure. Future code changes, such as adding functions without nonce validation, could introduce vulnerabilities if malleability remains inconsistent.

Recommendation

Enable signature malleability checks across all curves.

Remediation

The NEAR Intents team has fixed the issue by enabling signature malleability checks for all curves in these PRs:

• Ed25519: PR-47
• P256: PR-44