Cross Environment Semantic Drift

Injectable Skill: Cross-Environment Semantic Drift

L1 trigger: L1_PATTERN=true AND (fork of an EVM execution client OR L2-rollup detected OR EVM-on-non-EVM runtime OR precompile implementation in a non-EVM host detected) Inject Into: depth-external or depth-state-trace Language: Go, Rust, Solidity (for precompiles), C++ Finding prefix: [XE-N] Status: v0.1 draft, Round 4 exemplars pending

Orchestrator Decomposition Guide

• Sections 1, 2: depth-external (boundary enumeration)
• Section 3: depth-state-trace (semantic diff tracing)
• Section 4: depth-edge-case (integer width / encoding boundaries)

When This Skill Activates

Recon detects ONE of the following:

1. Target is a fork of an EVM execution client (op-geth, op-reth, arbitrum-nitro, base-node)
2. Target is an L2 rollup that re-implements EVM semantics (Optimism OVM, Arbitrum AVM, early zkEVMs)
3. Target runs EVM on a non-EVM host (Moonbeam on Polkadot-SDK, Frontier on Substrate, Neon on Solana)
4. Target implements precompiles that wrap native-host functionality
5. Target has integer-width boundaries between environments (128-bit Substrate balance vs 256-bit EVM value)

This is the most consequential "new class" skill: the most famous L1 bounties (Saurik's Optimism, pwning.eth's Moonbeam and Polkadot Frontier) are all in this category.

1. Boundary Enumeration

Map every semantic boundary in the target. A boundary is any place where code written against one execution model calls into code written against another.

Boundary types

Write the boundary map to scratchpad/xenv_boundaries.md before proceeding.

2. Per-Boundary Semantic Check

For each boundary, apply the four-question checklist:

Q1: What invariant does each side maintain?

Each side of the boundary has an invariant. Examples:

• EVM: sum(balances) == initial_supply - burned + minted
• Host: sum(host_balances) == host_total_supply
• Precompile: msg.sender is the caller

List both invariants explicitly.

Q2: Does crossing the boundary preserve both invariants?

Trace a value / state update from one side to the other. Does the accounting on both sides end consistent?

Known exemplar (Optimism SELFDESTRUCT): when a contract SELFDESTRUCTed, Optimism zeroed the contract's internal balance but forgot to remove the balance from the OVM_ETH ERC-20 total → the value was duplicated.

Check pattern: for every cross-boundary operation, write out pre-state and post-state on BOTH sides and verify conservation.

Tag: [XE-CONS:{boundary}:{invariant}:{break-path}]

Q3: Does the boundary inherit the caller's context correctly?

Precompiles, system contracts, and host-function wrappers all face the question: "what does msg.sender / caller mean when I'm called via DELEGATECALL?"

Known exemplar (Moonbeam delegatecall-to-precompile): pwning.eth showed that a malicious contract could DELEGATECALL into Moonbeam's native-token precompile, which then used the caller's identity without realizing the call-context had been rewritten. Attacker impersonated liquidity pools and drained them.

Check pattern: for every precompile / system contract, list what it does with msg.sender. Then ask: does it treat DELEGATECALL correctly? If the answer is "it doesn't know or doesn't check," that's a finding.

Tag: [XE-CONTEXT:{precompile}:{delegatecall-handling}]

Q4: Do integer widths match across the boundary?

Cross-environment value passing often crosses integer-width boundaries. EVM uses uint256; Substrate uses u128; Solana lamports are u64.

Known exemplar (Polkadot Frontier 128-bit truncation): msg.value is uint256 in Solidity; Substrate balance is u128. Frontier truncated the top bits when passing value into the host call. An attacker passed 2^128 + X, the host saw X, but the contract saw 2^128 + X — the contract credited itself with a massive amount while only X actually moved.

Check pattern: for every value passed across the boundary, list the source width and destination width. If source > destination, check for an explicit range check that rejects values above the destination's max. Silent truncation is always a bug.

Tag: [XE-WIDTH:{src-width}→{dst-width}:{check-status}]

Q4a: FFI / ABI integer width

If the boundary crosses Rust/Go ↔ C/C++/CUDA instead of one VM ↔ another, enumerate every integer type at the ABI:

• long / unsigned long
• size_t
• pointer-sized integers

Check whether the code assumes LP64 semantics while the deployment target may be LLP64 (for example Windows). Any 64-bit semantic value passed through long/unsigned long without an explicit width check is a truncation finding.

Tag: [XE-FFI-WIDTH:{type}]

3. Differential Diff Pattern (for forks)

If the target is a fork of an upstream EVM client (op-geth, op-reth), the highest-leverage analysis is diff-based:

1. git diff upstream/main...HEAD -- core/vm/
2. For every modified opcode or precompile, trace the behavior difference
3. Ask: does the modification preserve the upstream's invariants on both sides?

Many L2 bugs are "upstream-behavior-X was changed to Y to support L2 feature Z, but the change broke invariant W." This pattern catches the whole class.

Tag: [XE-FORK:{opcode}:{upstream}:{fork}:{invariant-broken}]

4. Encoding and Serialization Drift

Precompiles and cross-environment calls rely on stable encoding:

• RLP vs SSZ: Ethereum uses RLP for some things, SSZ for others. Mixing them is a bug source.
• Endianness: EVM is big-endian; Solana/Substrate use little-endian for some fields. Boundaries must agree.
• Struct alignment: cross-language struct passing (C ABI) must match.
• String vs bytes: Solidity string is UTF-8 bytes; some hosts enforce strict UTF-8 validation.

Tag: [XE-ENCODE:{drift}]

5. Rollup-Specific Patterns

For optimistic or zk rollups:

5a. Deposit / withdrawal replay

• Is each deposit identified by a unique nonce?
• Can a rollup operator replay a deposit message?
• Withdrawals: is the proof of inclusion on L2 validated against L1 state root?

5b. Sequencer trust

• Who can sequence? Is there a fallback if the sequencer is offline?
• Sequencer can censor — is there a forced-inclusion mechanism?

5c. Fraud proof / validity proof

• Optimistic: challenge window correctness, bond management, dispute game termination
• ZK: verifier contract correctness, public input binding

5d. Reorg-aware Off-chain Finality (Vector76 class)

Off-chain components that act on chain state — watchers, relayers, bridges, indexers, exchange deposit crediters — must wait for SAFE finality before treating a transaction as settled. Treating N=1 confirmations (or any depth below the protocol's finality guarantee) as final, and updating accounting before that, is the Vector76 / one-confirmation double-spend class: the observed block is reorged out, the off-chain side has already credited/released, and the value is gone.

Bounded reads: read SCIP graph artifacts (caller_map.md, callee_map.md, state_write_map.md, function_summary.md) to find confirmation-check call-sites and settlement/accounting write-sites; on-demand single-symbol source reads for the confirmation-gate and reorg-handler functions only; never bulk-read large files.

Heuristics:

1. Grep for confirmations, >= 1, >= confirmations, min_conf, finalized, safe_block, is_final, mark_*_settled, credit, release, settle, process_deposit, on_new_block, head.
2. Confirmation threshold: locate every site that gates an irreversible off-chain action (credit funds, release escrow, mark settled, advance a bridge nonce) on a confirmation count or block tag. Flag any that act on confirmations >= 1, on latest/head rather than finalized/safe, or on a depth below the chain's documented reorg-resistance bound.
3. Reorg handler presence: verify the off-chain component subscribes to reorg/head-change events AND has a rollback path that un-credits / re-queues any accounting it performed on a now-orphaned block. A settlement path with NO corresponding reorg-rollback handler is a finding.
4. PoW vs finalized-chain nuance: on a probabilistic-finality chain, the threshold must be depth-based and policy-justified; on a finality-gadget chain, acting before the finalized tag (not merely safe) for value-bearing actions is the bug.

Severity: irreversible value action on sub-finality confirmation is High–Critical (double-spend / loss); a missing reorg-rollback on a settlement path is High.

Tag: [REORG-PREMATURE-SETTLE:{site}:{threshold}], [REORG-NO-ROLLBACK:{component}]

6. Boundary conditions

7. Output schema

• Layer: cross-environment
• Bug class: conservation-break / context-confusion / integer-width-drift / encoding-drift / rollup-specific
• Preferred evidence tags: [DIFF-PASS] (differential against upstream) > [CONFORMANCE-PASS] > [LSP-TRACE]
• Severity baseline: Critical (all three famous exemplars were Critical)

8. Known bug exemplars (v0.2 — Round 4 verified)

1. Optimism SELFDESTRUCT infinite ETH ($2,000,042 bounty, Saurik, February 2022) — OVM 2.0 handling of SELFDESTRUCT with self as beneficiary doubled the balance each call instead of burning it. Caused by skipping the upstream geth branch that handles self-referential destruct. THE canonical cross-env bug. Saurik writeup; Optimism disclosure. Skill catch point: Section 3 (Differential diff pattern) — for every L1 fork, produce a delta-diff against upstream and manually review every opcode-handler change.

2. Moonbeam delegatecall precompile bypass ($1M + $50k bounty, pwning.eth, May 2022) — custom precompiles (XC-20, staking, democracy) did not distinguish CALL from DELEGATECALL. Malicious contract could DELEGATECALL the precompile, impersonate msg.sender, and access precompile storage of any user. Could drain ~$100M of liquidity. Immunefi bugfix review; Moonbeam patch notice. Skill catch point: Section 2 Q3 (context inheritance) — for every precompile, test whether DELEGATECALL invocation is handled. The direct answer-under-test is context.call_type() != DELEGATECALL at entry.

3. Polkadot Frontier uint256→u128 truncation ($1M bounty, pwning.eth, June 2022) — Substrate uses u128 balances; Frontier truncated EVM u256 transfer amounts. transferFrom(type(uint128).max + 1) truncated to 0 but bypassed validation. Attacker received huge credit. Affected Moonbeam, Astar, Acala — ~$200M at risk. Immunefi bugfix review; pwning.eth writeup. Skill catch point: Section 2 Q4 (integer width) — validation must run against source value, not truncated value.

4. Astar Network Frontier integer truncation ($50k bounty, Zellic, November 2023) — same class as #3 but recurred in Astar after the Polkadot Frontier patch. Demonstrates that per-integration checks are not enough — the skill must demand an audit of the Frontier library itself and every upstream consumer. Zellic writeup; Immunefi bugfix review. Skill catch point: dependency-audit-nodeclient — produce reverse-dep graph of shared crypto/VM libraries; any library affecting ≥2 L1/L2 networks is a critical-review target.

5. Starknet L1-L2 felt252 address mismatch — Ethereum addresses are 160-bit; Starknet addresses are felt252 (2^251 + 17·2^192). L1→L2 messages passing addresses may map valid L1 addresses to null or unexpected L2 addresses due to field truncation. Cairo Security Flaws — oxor.io. Skill catch point: Section 2 Q4 — any implicit type conversion on an address/identifier across environments is a finding.

Critical methodology addition from Round 4 (the Frontier recurrence)

Insert as new Section 3b: The Moonbeam/Astar/Acala/Polkadot-Frontier chain of four bounties across 18 months shows this class is systemic, not incidental. Per-integration audits missed it. The skill must:

1. Enumerate every EVM-on-non-EVM / L1-on-L1 boundary in the target
2. Identify the shared library implementing the boundary (often paritytech/frontier for Substrate-EVM chains, custom bridge contracts for L2s)
3. Audit the shared library itself — not just the integration
4. Test every public entry with type(uint256).max, type(uint128).max + 1, type(uint64).max + 1 at the boundary
5. Cross-reference: if you find a Frontier-class bug in Project A, immediately check Projects B, C, D using the same library version

Tag: [XE-SHARED-LIB:{library}:{consumers}]

9. Fallback if primitives unavailable

• List all precompile / precompiled_contract implementations
• List all L1 ↔ L2 boundary functions (deposit, withdrawal, message relay)
• For each, read the implementation end to end
• Cross-reference against upstream base client if it's a fork

Cross-references

• Related: execution-client-hardening (opcode semantics), light-client-proof-verification (rollup proof verification)
• Consumed by: depth-external, depth-state-trace
• Severity: docs/l1-mode/severity-matrix.md