Skip to content
medium Logic / State SWC-106 CWE-477

Selfdestruct Dependency / Forced Removal Assumption

SAFE-0093 Logic / State Checked automatically by the scanner
1

What goes wrong

Contract logic depends on another contract being destroyable or on selfdestruct refunds; EIP-6780 changed selfdestruct so it no longer deletes code outside the same transaction, breaking such assumptions.

2

How to fix it

the pattern that is safe
// Redesign without relying on selfdestruct semantics.
◆
Mind EIP-6780; don't depend on selfdestruct deletion.
3

Where this has happened

Largest recorded losses in the same failure class — related, not the same bug:

$586M · 2022 BNB Chain Token Hub Input validation · 2022 $326M · 2022 Wormhole Input validation · 2022 $197M · 2023 Euler Finance Input validation · 2023 $190M · 2022 Nomad Bridge Input validation · 2022
4

Related vulnerabilities in Logic / State

SAFE-0071Incorrect Accounting / Internal Balance Drift high · Logic / State SAFE-0095Uninitialized Storage Pointer (legacy) high · Logic / State SAFE-0146msg.value Reused Across a Loop / Multicall high · Logic / State SAFE-0249Missing Claimed Flag — Double Claim high · Logic / State SAFE-0070State Desync Between Related Variables medium · Logic / State SAFE-0081Storage vs Memory Misuse Causing State Bug medium · Logic / State SAFE-0094Predictable Contract Address / CREATE2 Reorg Risk medium · Logic / State SAFE-0142Uninitialised Storage Pointer medium · Logic / State
← PreviousReturn Data Length Not Checked (Memory Bomb / Decode Error)
Check your own contract for this

The SaferICO scanner runs 201 detectors over your Solidity source, SAFE-0093 among them. Paste an address or the source itself — a small per-scan fee, shown before you sign, or unlimited on any plan.

Run the scanner See how it is attacked Read the docs