Core security principles
A useful way to understand this topic is to separate the wallet interface from the rules enforced by the blockchain. The wallet helps users inspect and submit actions, while balances, ordering, and contract execution are recorded by the selected network. Wallet signatures express an account’s authorization intent for a message or transaction. Different signature types can have very different consequences, so review what is being signed, for whom, and with what effect. For “Signature Requests”, a practical first pass is to identify message signatures, transaction signatures, and structured data, then use request origin, authorization intent, and risk recognition to understand what the action can change and where its result should appear.
From a user perspective, message signatures answers what is being handled, transaction signatures identifies the participating account or object, and structured data determines which rule set applies. When these do not line up, a screen may still look normal while the user faces missing asset displays, insufficient fees, an incorrect request target, or difficulty locating the relevant on-chain record.
For long-term use, build message signatures, structured data, and authorization intent into a routine review, and periodically revisit persistent state related to risk recognition. The purpose of this knowledge is not to add friction; it is to make important confirmation points understandable before an action becomes difficult to reverse.
Third-party DApps, smart contracts, and network services can introduce their own risks. imtoken can present requests and on-chain information, but it cannot guarantee third-party code or unilaterally reverse a transaction that has already been confirmed on a blockchain. Important actions related to Signature Requests should therefore be based on a clear understanding of the request.
Recognize high-risk situations
Most practical mistakes do not come from the location of a button. They come from mixing up addresses, networks, assets, and permissions. A deliberate review process is more dependable than memorizing one fixed click path. Wallet signatures express an account’s authorization intent for a message or transaction. Different signature types can have very different consequences, so review what is being signed, for whom, and with what effect. For “Signature Requests”, a practical first pass is to identify message signatures, transaction signatures, and structured data, then use request origin, authorization intent, and risk recognition to understand what the action can change and where its result should appear.
From a user perspective, message signatures answers what is being handled, transaction signatures identifies the participating account or object, and structured data determines which rule set applies. When these do not line up, a screen may still look normal while the user faces missing asset displays, insufficient fees, an incorrect request target, or difficulty locating the relevant on-chain record.
In a real workflow, review transaction signatures first, then verify structured data and request origin, and finally inspect the status associated with authorization intent. Similar names do not prove that networks, assets, or contracts are interchangeable, and a previously successful action does not make a new permission request automatically safe.
Third-party DApps, smart contracts, and network services can introduce their own risks. imtoken can present requests and on-chain information, but it cannot guarantee third-party code or unilaterally reverse a transaction that has already been confirmed on a blockchain. Important actions related to Signature Requests should therefore be based on a clear understanding of the request.
A step-by-step review
This topic connects directly to everyday wallet activity. Any action involving assets, signatures, or permissions should begin with the request source, continue with the network and target, and end with an understanding of whether the effect can be reversed. Wallet signatures express an account’s authorization intent for a message or transaction. Different signature types can have very different consequences, so review what is being signed, for whom, and with what effect. For “Signature Requests”, a practical first pass is to identify message signatures, transaction signatures, and structured data, then use request origin, authorization intent, and risk recognition to understand what the action can change and where its result should appear.
From a user perspective, message signatures answers what is being handled, transaction signatures identifies the participating account or object, and structured data determines which rule set applies. When these do not line up, a screen may still look normal while the user faces missing asset displays, insufficient fees, an incorrect request target, or difficulty locating the relevant on-chain record.
A useful request review asks a sequence of questions: Where did it originate? Which message signatures is involved? Which structured data applies? Does it change request origin? Where should authorization intent be visible afterward? If any answer is unclear, stop before confirming and re-check the context.
Third-party DApps, smart contracts, and network services can introduce their own risks. imtoken can present requests and on-chain information, but it cannot guarantee third-party code or unilaterally reverse a transaction that has already been confirmed on a blockchain. Important actions related to Signature Requests should therefore be based on a clear understanding of the request.
- Verify message signatures
- Confirm structured data
- Locate authorization intent
- Never submit a seed phrase, private key, or verification code
What to do when something looks wrong
Blockchain activity can be publicly verifiable without being casually reversible. Pre-action review, understanding the request, and post-action transaction checks should therefore be treated as one continuous habit. Wallet signatures express an account’s authorization intent for a message or transaction. Different signature types can have very different consequences, so review what is being signed, for whom, and with what effect. For “Signature Requests”, a practical first pass is to identify message signatures, transaction signatures, and structured data, then use request origin, authorization intent, and risk recognition to understand what the action can change and where its result should appear.
From a user perspective, message signatures answers what is being handled, transaction signatures identifies the participating account or object, and structured data determines which rule set applies. When these do not line up, a screen may still look normal while the user faces missing asset displays, insufficient fees, an incorrect request target, or difficulty locating the relevant on-chain record.
Common mistakes include ignoring structured data, trusting a page name without checking transaction signatures, treating authorization intent as proof of immediate finality, or continuing with risk recognition on an unfamiliar site. A request being technically clickable does not mean it should be approved; each request needs its own review.
Third-party DApps, smart contracts, and network services can introduce their own risks. imtoken can present requests and on-chain information, but it cannot guarantee third-party code or unilaterally reverse a transaction that has already been confirmed on a blockchain. Important actions related to Signature Requests should therefore be based on a clear understanding of the request.
Long-term security habits
A useful way to understand this topic is to separate the wallet interface from the rules enforced by the blockchain. The wallet helps users inspect and submit actions, while balances, ordering, and contract execution are recorded by the selected network. Wallet signatures express an account’s authorization intent for a message or transaction. Different signature types can have very different consequences, so review what is being signed, for whom, and with what effect. For “Signature Requests”, a practical first pass is to identify message signatures, transaction signatures, and structured data, then use request origin, authorization intent, and risk recognition to understand what the action can change and where its result should appear.
From a user perspective, message signatures answers what is being handled, transaction signatures identifies the participating account or object, and structured data determines which rule set applies. When these do not line up, a screen may still look normal while the user faces missing asset displays, insufficient fees, an incorrect request target, or difficulty locating the relevant on-chain record.
If something looks wrong, preserve information that is safe to share publicly, such as the network name, public address, and authorization intent, then use wallet history or an appropriate block explorer to check on-chain state. Do not provide a seed phrase, private key, recovery phrase, or verification code to anyone in order to get help.
Third-party DApps, smart contracts, and network services can introduce their own risks. imtoken can present requests and on-chain information, but it cannot guarantee third-party code or unilaterally reverse a transaction that has already been confirmed on a blockchain. Important actions related to Signature Requests should therefore be based on a clear understanding of the request.