跨链安全
867 views
6 Discussing
Hot
Latest
See original
🚨 Case Analysis | GriffinAI Lost $3 Million Due to Cross-Chain Bridge Configuration Error and Private Key Leakage
💸 Incident Brief
In September, the AI protocol GriffinAI encountered a complex attack. The attacker exploited the misconfiguration of its LayerZero cross-chain bridge and the leakage of private keys from core contracts on the BSC chain, bypassing verification to mint 5 billion GAIN tokens out of thin air on BSC and sold part to profit approximately $3 million.
🔍 Attack Chain Review
Entry: The project party's token contract private key on BSC was leaked.
Exploitation: The LayerZero cross-chain bridge used by the project had a permission vulnerability in its configuration.
Attack: The attacker used the private key to deploy a malicious contract on Ethereum, sending forged cross-chain messages to BSC, triggering illegal minting.
Monetization: Sold fake tokens for cash on PancakeSwap.
💡 Core Warnings
Security is a chain: A single private key leak combined with a configuration error is enough to destroy the entire protocol.
Audits require full coverage: Security audits must cover smart contracts, private key management processes, and the configuration of all third-party components (such as cross-chain bridges) simultaneously.
Monitor minting behavior: For any contract with minting capabilities, real-time alerts for large minting events must be set up.
#跨链安全 #私钥管理 #配置错误 #GriffinAI
💸 Incident Brief
In September, the AI protocol GriffinAI encountered a complex attack. The attacker exploited the misconfiguration of its LayerZero cross-chain bridge and the leakage of private keys from core contracts on the BSC chain, bypassing verification to mint 5 billion GAIN tokens out of thin air on BSC and sold part to profit approximately $3 million.
🔍 Attack Chain Review
Entry: The project party's token contract private key on BSC was leaked.
Exploitation: The LayerZero cross-chain bridge used by the project had a permission vulnerability in its configuration.
Attack: The attacker used the private key to deploy a malicious contract on Ethereum, sending forged cross-chain messages to BSC, triggering illegal minting.
Monetization: Sold fake tokens for cash on PancakeSwap.
💡 Core Warnings
Security is a chain: A single private key leak combined with a configuration error is enough to destroy the entire protocol.
Audits require full coverage: Security audits must cover smart contracts, private key management processes, and the configuration of all third-party components (such as cross-chain bridges) simultaneously.
Monitor minting behavior: For any contract with minting capabilities, real-time alerts for large minting events must be set up.
#跨链安全 #私钥管理 #配置错误 #GriffinAI
See original
Encapsulating Failure Within Boundaries: Hemi's Cross-Domain Risk Isolation and Enforceable Settlement
The greatest systemic risk of cross-chain comes from the single point of failure of 'custodial bridges' and the ghost liabilities caused by 'finality inconsistency'.
The path taken by Hemi is to transform cross-domain communication into verifiable message transmission, to convert asset movement into net settlement after clearing, and to incorporate failure scenarios into games and penalties at the protocol layer.
First, Hemi requires cross-domain messages to be accompanied by verifiable proof, and any receiving domain must first verify the validity and order position of its source domain when consuming messages; secondly, at the asset level, it is advisable to avoid the packaging design of 'custody + minting', and instead reduce the exposure time of in-transit value through bilateral accounting and net settlement;
The path taken by Hemi is to transform cross-domain communication into verifiable message transmission, to convert asset movement into net settlement after clearing, and to incorporate failure scenarios into games and penalties at the protocol layer.
First, Hemi requires cross-domain messages to be accompanied by verifiable proof, and any receiving domain must first verify the validity and order position of its source domain when consuming messages; secondly, at the asset level, it is advisable to avoid the packaging design of 'custody + minting', and instead reduce the exposure time of in-transit value through bilateral accounting and net settlement;
See original
Don't be foolish! WBTC is just an IOU, Hemi lets BTC wear EVM armor and go directly into Ethereum, but hides a fatal flaw that can evaporate assets.
@Hemi $HEMI #Hemi
1. The blood and tears lesson of newcomers losing BTC in cross-chain: traditional cross-chains just give you an IOU; Hemi is the real BTC presence.
Last week, the new kid in the team almost cried — transferring 1 BTC to Ethereum through a well-known cross-chain bridge got stuck in the contract for 6 hours, and customer service just kept saying to be patient. In the end, it was retrieved, but this made me realize more clearly: today's 'cross-chain innovation' is essentially just painting a layer of 'decentralization' on a centralized cage.
It wasn't until I finished digging through Hemi's code and documentation, especially its hVM (Bitcoin Virtual Machine), that I realized: this isn't just a repackaged cross-chain bridge; it's genuinely giving Bitcoin an EVM armor — your BTC doesn't have to turn into WBTC like an IOU, and it can play DeFi directly on Ethereum, with security just like the BTC mainnet, and it takes only 2 minutes to arrive.
1. The blood and tears lesson of newcomers losing BTC in cross-chain: traditional cross-chains just give you an IOU; Hemi is the real BTC presence.
Last week, the new kid in the team almost cried — transferring 1 BTC to Ethereum through a well-known cross-chain bridge got stuck in the contract for 6 hours, and customer service just kept saying to be patient. In the end, it was retrieved, but this made me realize more clearly: today's 'cross-chain innovation' is essentially just painting a layer of 'decentralization' on a centralized cage.
It wasn't until I finished digging through Hemi's code and documentation, especially its hVM (Bitcoin Virtual Machine), that I realized: this isn't just a repackaged cross-chain bridge; it's genuinely giving Bitcoin an EVM armor — your BTC doesn't have to turn into WBTC like an IOU, and it can play DeFi directly on Ethereum, with security just like the BTC mainnet, and it takes only 2 minutes to arrive.
See original
🚨【Case Analysis】Privasea Cross-chain Bridge Vulnerability: In-depth Analysis of $32 Million Loss
💸 Incident Backtrack
In March, the Web3 project Privasea, focused on AI+DePIN, experienced a serious vulnerability in its cross-chain bridge, resulting in a loss of approximately $32 million. Attackers exploited logical flaws in the cross-chain message verification process to successfully forge cross-chain transactions and steal funds.
🔍 Root Cause of the Vulnerability
Defect in the verification mechanism: Logical flaws exist in cross-chain message verification
State synchronization errors: Complex state synchronization mechanisms were not adequately tested
Delayed monitoring response: Anomaly transaction detection and response mechanisms failed
💡 Warning
Cross-chain protocols must undergo rigorous formal verification
Establish tiered alarm and automatic circuit breaker mechanisms
Regularly conduct stress tests and security audits on cross-chain bridges
#跨链安全 #PRIVASEA #DeFi安全 #智能合约审计
💸 Incident Backtrack
In March, the Web3 project Privasea, focused on AI+DePIN, experienced a serious vulnerability in its cross-chain bridge, resulting in a loss of approximately $32 million. Attackers exploited logical flaws in the cross-chain message verification process to successfully forge cross-chain transactions and steal funds.
🔍 Root Cause of the Vulnerability
Defect in the verification mechanism: Logical flaws exist in cross-chain message verification
State synchronization errors: Complex state synchronization mechanisms were not adequately tested
Delayed monitoring response: Anomaly transaction detection and response mechanisms failed
💡 Warning
Cross-chain protocols must undergo rigorous formal verification
Establish tiered alarm and automatic circuit breaker mechanisms
Regularly conduct stress tests and security audits on cross-chain bridges
#跨链安全 #PRIVASEA #DeFi安全 #智能合约审计
See original
🚨 Case Analysis | Cross-Chain Bridge Governance Attack: In-Depth Analysis of $1.3 Million Loss at Stargate Finance
Incident Review
Last year, the cross-chain bridge Stargate Finance, based on LayerZero, was attacked due to a governance mechanism vulnerability, resulting in a loss of approximately $1.3 million. The attacker borrowed a large amount of governance tokens STG through a flash loan and completed the entire attack process from proposal to execution within a single block.
Attack Technique Breakdown
Governance Power Monopoly: Instantaneously acquire over 51% of voting power through flash loans
Malicious Proposal: Submit a malicious governance proposal to transfer protocol funds
Rapid Execution: Exploit the time vulnerability in the governance mechanism to complete voting and execution within the same block
Fund Transfer: Transfer protocol funds to an address controlled by the attacker
Key Findings from Security Audit
71% of DeFi protocol governance mechanisms have similar time vulnerabilities
The single block governance attack used in this attack is a new type of composite attack model
Projects that have undergone dedicated governance security audits have a 87% lower probability of encountering such attacks
Protection Scheme Upgrades
✅ Governance proposals must set a voting period of at least 24 hours
✅ Key fund operations must introduce a time-lock delay mechanism
✅ Conduct specialized stress testing for flash loan governance attacks
✅ Establish a real-time monitoring and early warning system for governance activities
Core Insight
"The excessive concentration of governance power and the overly rapid execution are becoming new attack vectors. The security of cross-chain bridges should not only focus on technical implementation but also pay attention to the security of governance mechanism design."
#跨链安全 #治理攻击 #STARGATE #DeFi安全
Incident Review
Last year, the cross-chain bridge Stargate Finance, based on LayerZero, was attacked due to a governance mechanism vulnerability, resulting in a loss of approximately $1.3 million. The attacker borrowed a large amount of governance tokens STG through a flash loan and completed the entire attack process from proposal to execution within a single block.
Attack Technique Breakdown
Governance Power Monopoly: Instantaneously acquire over 51% of voting power through flash loans
Malicious Proposal: Submit a malicious governance proposal to transfer protocol funds
Rapid Execution: Exploit the time vulnerability in the governance mechanism to complete voting and execution within the same block
Fund Transfer: Transfer protocol funds to an address controlled by the attacker
Key Findings from Security Audit
71% of DeFi protocol governance mechanisms have similar time vulnerabilities
The single block governance attack used in this attack is a new type of composite attack model
Projects that have undergone dedicated governance security audits have a 87% lower probability of encountering such attacks
Protection Scheme Upgrades
✅ Governance proposals must set a voting period of at least 24 hours
✅ Key fund operations must introduce a time-lock delay mechanism
✅ Conduct specialized stress testing for flash loan governance attacks
✅ Establish a real-time monitoring and early warning system for governance activities
Core Insight
"The excessive concentration of governance power and the overly rapid execution are becoming new attack vectors. The security of cross-chain bridges should not only focus on technical implementation but also pay attention to the security of governance mechanism design."
#跨链安全 #治理攻击 #STARGATE #DeFi安全
Login to explore more contents