Why Web3 Applications Need Holistic Security Reviews

Introduction

Smart contract audits have long been the headline act of Web3 security. But what happens when a dApp with a flawless contract layer is exploited through its frontend, compromised wallet integration, or an unverified oracle feed? These aren’t hypothetical scenarios. They’re common realities.

Modern dApps are no longer just Solidity contracts deployed on-chain. They’re full-stack applications composed of multiple interdependent layers, each with its unique attack surface. A secure dApp is not one that has just passed a contract audit. It’s one that has undergone thorough scrutiny across all layers: the smart contracts, the dApp frontend, the wallets it integrates with, the off-chain components it depends on, and the libraries it imports.

This blog breaks down the full-stack security requirements for Web3 applications and outlines why a smart contract audit is just the beginning.

DApp Penetration Testing: The Forgotten Frontline

While most projects focus heavily on smart contract security, the dApp frontend, the bridge between users and the blockchain, is often left under-tested. This UI layer is where users interact with wallets, sign transactions, and approve token allowances. If compromised, it can be just as dangerous as a vulnerable contract. In fact, in many attacks, the contracts are never touched, and the attacker manipulates the frontend or its integrations to deceive users into signing malicious payloads.

The Core Problem

The dApp is essentially a Web2 application operating in a Web3 context. It involves HTML, JavaScript, APIS, CDN-hosted assets, browser wallets, and sometimes backend services. Each of these layers introduces traditional Web2 vulnerabilities into a decentralized ecosystem. Attackers use phishing modals, malicious JavaScript injection, session manipulation, and spoofed wallet flows to hijack transactions or steal private keys.

The danger is compounded by the fact that users often don’t understand the implications of what they’re signing. This creates a huge opportunity for social engineering attacks disguised as legitimate dApp interactions.

Here’s a breakdown of critical risks unique to dApp frontends:

1. DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Improper sanitisation of user input can allow attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript into the browser. In Web3, this can escalate quickly, attackers can hook into window. ethereum, listen for wallet connections, or inject rogue signing requests.
2. Malicious Signing Flows DApps often rely on functions like eth_sign, personal_sign, or eth_signTypedData to request user signatures. If these flows are manipulated through UI injection or logic bugs, users can be tricked into signing arbitrary messages that grant token approvals, ownership transfers, or allow off-chain authorisation.
3. Over-reliance on Browser Storage Many dApps store sensitive data like JWTs, auth tokens, or even encrypted seed phrases in localStorage or sessionStorage. These are accessible to injected scripts, meaning one XSS vector can compromise an entire session or user identity.
4. Weak Wallet Interaction Controls If a dApp doesn’t verify wallet origin (e.g., injecting walletconnect without validating its bridge URL), it opens the door to rogue wallets that silently sign malicious transactions.
5. Dependency Injection and NPM Typosquatting Modern dApps use dozens of node modules and frontend libraries. Attackers have leveraged typosquatting attacks (e.g., publishing ether.js instead of ethers.js) or injecting malicious code into popular packages.
6. Source Map and Build Leakages DApps often leak source maps or .env files in production builds, revealing internal routing logic, secret keys, or API endpoints. These leaked artefacts can significantly reduce attacker effort.
7. Insecure Integration with IPFS/Gateways  Hosting frontend apps on IPFS or relying on third-party IPFS gateways (like Cloudflare’s or Infura’s) introduces integrity risks. Unsigned content can be replaced or spoofed, especially if the dApp does not pin and verify the CID integrity.

What a Real Penetration Test Should Involve

A true dApp pentest goes far beyond static scanning or UI testing. It involves:

Attack Surface Enumeration

• Identifying exposed files, assets, and routes
• Crawling for hidden endpoints, debug consoles, or developer tools
• Analysing source maps and frontend logic to build a threat model

Manual XSS and Injection Testing

• Injecting payloads across all user input fields
• Analysing render chains in React/Vue/Next.js apps
• Testing script injection through wallet connection modals and on-chain data rendering

Web3 Contextual Exploits

• Simulating a malicious dApp using a fake WalletConnect bridge
• Bypassing wallet confirmation by injecting pre-signed txs
• Testing the signMessage and signTypedData flows for logic flaws or misleading prompts

CDN & Dependency Audit

• Scanning all third-party JS libraries for known CVEs
• Checking integrity hashes (subresource integrity) for externally loaded scripts
• Looking for signs of dependency confusion or malicious NPM packages

Phishing Simulation & Social Engineering

• Rebuilding phishing clones of the dApp and testing how easily a user could be misled
• Evaluating how transaction prompts appear to the end-user
• Testing if the app prevents signature requests outside its domain (especially in iframe contexts)

Tools and Techniques

• Burp Suite Pro with DOM Invader for JavaScript-based injection flows.
• BeEF (Browser Exploitation Framework) for simulating attacker-controlled browsers.
• GraphQLmap or Postman for fuzzing exposed APIs.
• Wappalyzer for dependency and framework fingerprinting.
• Metasploit + ngrok for phishing simulation in closed testnets.
• Manual testing via browser dev tools and injected scripts.

The dApp frontend is where users make critical decisions, often blindly signing data without understanding what’s happening under the hood. A single frontend vulnerability can bypass the most rigorously audited smart contracts. Frontend security is not just about web hygiene but protecting real assets.

If you’re not penetration testing the frontend with the same rigour as your contracts, you’re leaving half the attack surface open. Full-stack security begins at the browser, not the blockchain.

Wallet Security: The User’s Gateway Is the Hacker’s Target

Wallets in the Web3 ecosystem are far more than just digital vaults, they are the primary interface through which users interact with blockchain networks. As a result, the security of a wallet is paramount. If an attacker gains access to a user’s wallet, they essentially gain access to the user’s entire blockchain-based identity, assets, and permissions.

Unfortunately, wallet security is often underappreciated, as many users are unaware of the risks they face. In many attacks, the vulnerability doesn’t lie within the smart contract or blockchain infrastructure; it exists in the user’s interaction with their wallet. Here, we’ll discuss the potential risks, common attack vectors, and best practices for securing wallets in the Web3 space.

Attack Surface

• Phishing and Fake Wallet Extensions

Wallet extensions (like MetaMask or WalletConnect) are common targets for phishing attacks. A malicious browser extension or website can prompt the user to connect their wallet, only for the attacker to steal the seed phrase or private key. Attackers can also create fake wallet clone apps, often indistinguishable from the real one, tricking users into entering their private keys or seed phrases.

• Man-in-the-Middle Attacks

Many Web3 applications require users to sign transactions via their wallet, but if the connection between the wallet and the dApp is intercepted (via public Wi-Fi, for instance), an attacker can perform a MitM attack, manipulating the transaction details or extracting signed messages for malicious use.

• Private Key Exposure via Insecure Storage

Private keys and recovery phrases are the heart of wallet security. If a wallet stores these in an insecure location (e.g., plaintext on a device or in cloud storage), attackers can easily obtain them. Even browser-based wallets sometimes suffer from insecure storage practices (e.g., storing keys in localStorage or indexedDB).

• Wallet Compromise Through Smart Contract Vulnerabilities

Even if the wallet itself is secure, interacting with vulnerable or malicious smart contracts can expose the user to risks. For example, a wallet could sign a transaction approving an unlimited token transfer, giving an attacker free rein over the user’s tokens. This type of vulnerability is commonly seen in poorly designed contracts with unlimited allowance functions or in contracts that don’t properly validate transaction parameters.

• Reentrancy Attacks and Signature Replay

Attackers can exploit vulnerabilities in wallets, such as reentrancy bugs, to manipulate wallet-based transactions. In a typical reentrancy attack, an attacker tricks the wallet into signing multiple transactions with the same request. Signature replay attacks also allow an attacker to replay a valid transaction on a different chain or at a different time.

Hardening Recommendations

• Use Multi-Signature and Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Ensure that wallets require multiple forms of verification, whether it be hardware wallets or a multi-signature approach.

• Avoid Storing Sensitive Keys in Plaintext: Use secure enclave technologies or dedicated hardware wallets to store private keys.

• Check for Secure Connection Practices: Ensure that all wallet communications occur over HTTPS and that public keys are validated before signatures are requested.

• Conduct Regular Security Audits: Wallets should undergo frequent security assessments, focusing on cryptographic security, secure key management, and third-party library vulnerabilities.

• Implement Phishing Protection: Display clear warnings about untrusted sites, warn users about risks with fake wallet apps, and use domain validation in wallet connections.

Oracle Security: The Trust Assumption Nobody Questions

Oracles play a vital role in the Web3 ecosystem. They provide external data, such as asset prices, weather reports, or off-chain events, which are then used by smart contracts to make decisions. Oracles are often the linchpin of decentralised applications, enabling real-world data to influence blockchain events. However, oracles also introduce a significant attack surface, as they are trusted entities that bridge the decentralised blockchain with the centralised, off-chain world.

The security of oracles is critical because they can be targeted by attackers to manipulate data and cause disruptions in decentralized finance (DeFi) systems, governance decisions, or smart contract functionality.

Attack Surface

• Data Manipulation or Spoofing

Oracles are vulnerable to attacks where the attacker manipulates or spoofs the data they provide. For example, an attacker could manipulate the data returned by an oracle feeding price information to a DeFi protocol, triggering liquidations or unfair transactions. Oracle manipulation can lead to severe financial losses in decentralised systems.

• Centralisation of Oracle Providers

Many oracles are centralized entities, such as Chainlink, that offer external data feeds. While decentralised oracle solutions are emerging, centralisation still represents a significant risk. A malicious actor could compromise the central oracle provider and manipulate the data feeds, or even cause downtime, potentially disrupting the entire ecosystem relying on it.

• Attack on Oracle Consensus Mechanisms

Decentralised oracles rely on various consensus models to ensure that data is trustworthy. For example, Chainlink uses a decentralised network of nodes to verify the accuracy of the data being fed into smart contracts. However, an attack could be launched to corrupt this consensus mechanism. By compromising enough nodes, an attacker could manipulate the oracle data.

• Timing Attacks

In the context of DeFi, accurate timing is critical. For example, oracles are often used to trigger actions in smart contracts at specific times (e.g., executing a trade when certain price thresholds are met). Attackers can exploit timing discrepancies to manipulate the smart contract’s behavior, possibly front-running or delaying actions.

• Vulnerabilities in Oracle Code

The oracle’s code itself may have vulnerabilities that can be exploited. For instance, poor error handling, improper cryptographic key management, or a failure to validate the source of data could all lead to security breaches. Additionally, many oracle systems rely on off-chain code, which can introduce vulnerabilities if the off-chain component is not adequately secured.

Recommendations

• Decentralised Oracle Networks: Use multiple independent oracles or aggregated oracle solutions to ensure that no single point of failure exists.
• Validate Data Inputs: Implement robust validation of external data to ensure that it is coming from a trusted and reliable source.
• Use Cryptographic Signatures: All data provided by oracles should be cryptographically signed, ensuring its authenticity.
• Employ Redundancy: Have multiple independent oracles provide the same data to reduce the chance of manipulated information slipping through.
• Regularly Review and Update Oracle Code: Continually monitor and audit Oracle code to ensure vulnerabilities are identified and mitigated as early as possible.

Off-Chain Components: The Hidden Backends

Your backend may not live on-chain, but it still lives on the internet. And the internet is a hostile environment.

Relayer services, bots, cron jobs, and admin APIs: these off-chain parts often hold signing keys, handle transaction construction, or act as glue between Web2 and Web3. And they’re frequently deployed without proper security practices.

We’ve audited systems where a bot’s private key was exposed in logs, a backend API lacked rate limiting and became a DDoS target, and webhook URLs were exposed publicly and vulnerable to replay attacks.

If your off-chain code signs transactions, interacts with contracts, or manages funds, it needs just as much scrutiny as your smart contracts. Sometimes even more.

• Backend APIs, relayers, bots, database services: often skipped in audits
• API key exposure, insufficient rate limiting, and leaked private endpoints
• Exploits via webhook listeners or relay services (e.g., MEV bots)
• Server-side logic errors resulting in fund misallocation
• Securing APIs with auth, whitelisting, and anomaly detection

External Libraries: Inherited Vulnerabilities

No one builds everything from scratch. We all depend on third-party libraries in the frontend, backend, and even on-chain.

Typosquatted npm packages. Malicious updates to lesser-known libraries. Vulnerabilities in popular tools like ethers.js, axios, or even simple utilities. These are increasingly common entry points.

Smart attackers don’t always exploit your code. They exploit the code you trust. There have been incidents where a single update introduced wallet-draining logic into a widely used frontend dependency. This slipped into multiple DApps without anyone noticing.

You don’t need to be paranoid, but you do need visibility. Lock your dependencies. Pin versions. Run dependency audits regularly. Assume every package could be compromised unless proven otherwise.

A Smart Contract Audit Isn’t Enough

A smart contract audit is just the beginning of your security journey, not the end.

Web3 products are full-stack systems. A secure product requires security across all layers:

• Frontend (DApp)
• Backend and APIs
• Wallet interactions
• Oracles
• External dependencies
• And of course, the smart contracts

Attackers don’t care whether a vulnerability lives in the backend, the frontend, or the contract. They care about where they can gain access or move assets. You should think the same way.

Conclusion

If you’re only auditing smart contracts, you’re protecting half your product. The other half remains exposed, vulnerable, and easily overlooked. We’ve moved past the era where a single bug in a contract could kill a project. Now, a misconfigured server or a malicious npm update can cause the same damage with less noise.

It’s time we normalise full-scope Web3 audits. Penetration testing for DApps. Secure wallet flows. Oracle integrity checks. Backend hardening. Library reviews. Security is not a checkbox. It is a continuous process and a mindset. Don’t just audit your code. Audit your entire product.

admin