If you don’t want to do it yourself, or want an expert set of eyes, we offer Permissions Audits. We map your permission architecture, identify vulnerabilities and critical control paths, and provide recommendations to strengthen your configurations.

You can see the methodology applied to weETH and USD3. Each report maps the permissions and dependencies behind the asset, including supply, governance, holder, price, signer, and bridge controls. Explore the reports and the methodology:

Bridge control What additional control assumptions are introduced when assets move across chains? Bridges can introduce new upgrade, minting, pausing, signer, and validator permissions. Those dependencies become part of the asset’s overall security model.

Signers Who can exercise privileged permissions in practice? Review signer thresholds, independence, key management, and who can change the signer set. A multisig can still represent a concentrated dependency if control ultimately sits with a small group.

Price control Who controls the price inputs the protocol relies on? Oracle selection, configuration, fallbacks, and admin permissions can affect liquidations, borrowing, minting, redemptions, and other economically sensitive actions.

Holder controls What authority do privileged actors have over individual holders? Freeze, blocklist, seizure, burn, and pause permissions can determine whether holders retain unrestricted control over their assets and who can intervene.

Governance & protocol control Who can change how the protocol works? Upgrades, parameter changes, privileged roles, timelocks, and emergency powers determine who can alter the system and what safeguards constrain that authority.

Supply control Who can change the supply of an asset, and under what conditions? Minting, burning, supply caps, and the permissions that govern them can directly affect dilution, solvency, and the economic security of an asset.

It’s critical to routinely review access control and permission configurations. Permissions accumulate and change over time. New integrations, roles, and dependencies can introduce new vulnerabilities. We published our audit methodology so you can use it as a checklist ↓

A few weeks ago, we shared a warning about an increase in attacks targeting governance and permission configurations. The Term exploit, and many others we have seen, fall into this category. We are disheartened to see users, teams, and DeFi continue to be affected. We know these incidents, which are part of a broader access-control surface area, account for 83% of hacks in DeFi and OWASP has consistently ranked access control as the #1# smart contract risk. Aragon provides open-source, permissionless tools that give users significant power in how they secure their assets and protocols. When combining Aragon with Safes, modules, OZ contracts and tools, custom code, and other systems, it’s important to understand the resulting permission configurations as a whole. The Aragon tech stack has been operating as intended. We will continue to add new security features including improved notifications and permissions mapping, while continuing to offer auditing and professional signer services. Do not hesitate to reach out for support:

Network Alpha is live. The Interfold is live on mainnet: private inputs, verifiable outputs, no trusted hardware. Public ciphernode participation and confidential governance are coming next.

Automation improves security and predictability by separating routine actions from human judgment. Rules constrain execution, while people handle exceptions. Worth revisiting as onchain operations scale in complexity and volume. ↓

As security incidents continue to increase across the crypto ecosystem, we’ve also seen a recent increase in malicious proposals targeting token-voting governance systems on Aragon. These proposals are designed to get control of enough tokens to drain liquidity pools. This isn’t unique to Aragon, but it’s a good reminder to review your governance setup, monitor proposals closely, and make sure appropriate safeguards are in place. Depending on your governance model, there are several ways to strengthen security: • Extend voting durations and add timelock stages. Longer voting windows and a timelock before execution give token holders, contributors, and security teams more time to identify malicious proposals and coordinate a response. If your governance process allows early execution, consider using standard voting so proposals can never execute before the voting period ends. • Restrict proposal creation. Limiting proposal creation to members of your governing bodies, or requiring a minimum token balance to create a proposal, can reduce spam and opportunistic attacks while preserving decentralized governance. • Review quorum settings. Make sure treasury proposals require meaningful token holder participation before they can pass, and periodically review quorum thresholds as voter participation and governance activity evolve. • Consider optimistic governance with a token holder veto. In this model, a trusted group such as a core team or multisig creates proposals, while token holders retain the ability to veto them during a protected objection window. This reduces voting overhead while preserving decentralized control, but it depends on token holders actively monitoring proposals and responding before the objection window closes. Governance security is an ongoing process, and every project should regularly review its governance configuration as threats evolve. We’ll continue building tools to make governance and execution more secure while helping projects strengthen their governance. If you’d like us to review your setup or discuss additional protections, our team is happy to help. Please reach out.

1/ Two new cohorts, 20 new teams, the same one goal: harden Ethereum through accessible world-class security. From restaking and stablecoin infra to onchain governance and agent-powered commerce, we’re thrilled to officially welcome Cohort II and III to the Ethereum Security Subsidy Program! Together, as always, with @ethereumfndn, @nethermind, and @chainlinklabs.

Timelocks are an essential secure execution primitive. They create deterministic windows for monitoring, human review, incident response, and security council intervention before onchain actions become irreversible.