pith. sign in

arxiv: 2410.01107 · v3 · submitted 2024-10-01 · 💻 cs.CR

Count of Monte Crypto: Accounting-based Defenses for Cross-Chain Bridges

Enze Liu , Elisa Luo , Jian Chen Yan , Katherine Izhikevich , Stewart Grant , Deian Stefan , Geoffrey M Voelker , Stefan Savage This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 19:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR
keywords cross-chain bridgesblockchain securityaccounting invariantscrypto theft detectionbridge attackstransaction analysisdefensive invariantsvalue accounting
0
0 comments X

The pith

A simple inflow-outflow balance rule detects every known cross-chain bridge attack while passing all legitimate traffic in 10 million transactions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper analyzes 10 million transactions across major bridges from 2021 to 2023 and identifies a single design flaw behind more than $2.6 billion in losses: the absence of end-to-end value accounting. It demonstrates that an invariant requiring total inflows to equal total outflows is consistent with normal bridge activity yet flags every documented attack and several additional suspicious patterns in the data. The same check supports both offline audits of past events and direct insertion into live bridge code to block a wide range of exploits at runtime.

Core claim

The central claim is that a straightforward invariant balancing cross-chain inflows and outflows is compatible with legitimate use yet precisely identifies every known attack (and several likely attacks) in the analyzed data, and that this approach can be implemented in-line in existing bridge designs to provide generic protection against a broad array of bridge vulnerabilities.

What carries the argument

The inflow-outflow balance invariant that requires the total value entering a chain via the bridge to match the total value leaving it.

If this is right

  • Every documented bridge attack violates the inflow-outflow invariant.
  • Legitimate usage maintains the balance across the examined transactions.
  • The invariant supports post-hoc audits of historical bridge activity.
  • The check can be added directly to existing bridge implementations for runtime protection.
  • The method covers a broad range of bridge vulnerabilities beyond the specific exploits studied.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Bridges lacking this invariant remain open to novel attacks that alter net value across chains.
  • Similar balance checks could apply to other multi-chain protocols that move assets without native accounting.
  • Live deployment would need to handle timing differences and fees without creating false positives.
  • Public release of the invariant logic could let independent auditors verify bridge states on an ongoing basis.

Load-bearing premise

The 10 million analyzed transactions capture all forms of legitimate bridge usage and no honest but complex transaction patterns will violate the balance.

What would settle it

Discovery of either an attack that preserves the inflow-outflow balance or a sequence of legitimate transactions that violates it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2410.01107 by Deian Stefan, Elisa Luo, Enze Liu, Geoffrey M Voelker, Jian Chen Yan, Katherine Izhikevich, Stefan Savage, Stewart Grant.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cross-chain token bridging and the different steps attackers can exploit to withdraw unbacked deposits. ounts to executing the smart contract bytecode—and any [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Event Emitted by an ERC-20 Token (USDC). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Simplified USDC ERC-20 Token Contract. tracks how many USDC tokens an account has and governs the spending of these tokens (much like a bank governs bank notes). For example, the contract’s mint function lets Circle (the company that owns the USDC contract) mint new tokens into a user’s account—e.g., after receiving the corresponding payment from the user off-chain (in US dollars, as USDC tokens are pegged… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total Inflow (on Ethereum) - Total Outflow (on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The lifetime of the bridges in our retrospective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Live auditing system which consists of three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Announce-then-execute model for bridges. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Between 2021 and 2023, crypto assets valued at over \$US2.6 billion were stolen via attacks on "bridges" -- decentralized services designed to allow inter-blockchain exchange. While the individual exploits in each attack vary, a single design flaw underlies them all: the lack of end-to-end value accounting in cross-chain transactions. In this paper, we empirically analyze 10 million transactions used by key bridges during this period. We show that a simple invariant that balances cross-chain inflows and outflows is compatible with legitimate use, yet precisely identifies every known attack (and several likely attacks) in this data. Further, we show that this approach is not only sufficient for post-hoc audits, but can be implemented in-line in existing bridge designs to provide generic protection against a broad array of bridge vulnerabilities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a simple invariant balancing cross-chain inflows and outflows is compatible with legitimate bridge usage yet detects every known attack (and several likely attacks) in a dataset of 10 million transactions from key bridges (2021-2023). It further argues that the invariant supports both post-hoc audits and in-line implementation in existing bridge designs to provide generic protection against a broad array of vulnerabilities.

Significance. If the central empirical claim holds, the result would be significant: bridge exploits have caused over $2.6B in losses, and an accounting invariant that is simple, falsifiable, and implementable in-line could offer broad, low-overhead defense. The large-scale transaction analysis and the demonstration of compatibility with observed legitimate flows are concrete strengths that ground the proposal.

major comments (1)
  1. [Empirical Evaluation] Empirical Evaluation section: the central claim that the invariant is 'compatible with legitimate use' and provides 'generic protection' rests on analysis of 10M transactions, yet the manuscript supplies no details on bridge/transaction selection criteria, how false-positive rates were measured, or explicit testing of complex but honest patterns (multi-hop, conditional, or DeFi-composed flows). A single unobserved legitimate counterexample would falsify the compatibility and generality assertions.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'several likely attacks' is used without defining the criteria used to classify them as likely or how they were distinguished from noise in the dataset.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and for highlighting the potential significance of the work. We address the major comment point-by-point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Empirical Evaluation] Empirical Evaluation section: the central claim that the invariant is 'compatible with legitimate use' and provides 'generic protection' rests on analysis of 10M transactions, yet the manuscript supplies no details on bridge/transaction selection criteria, how false-positive rates were measured, or explicit testing of complex but honest patterns (multi-hop, conditional, or DeFi-composed flows). A single unobserved legitimate counterexample would falsify the compatibility and generality assertions.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would be strengthened by additional methodological transparency. In the revised version, we will expand the Empirical Evaluation section with a new subsection on data sources and validation. This will specify: (1) bridge and transaction selection criteria, including the exact set of bridges analyzed (e.g., those with known exploits and high transaction volume from 2021-2023), data sources (public blockchain explorers and bridge event logs), and filtering rules for the 10M cross-chain transactions; (2) false-positive measurement, which consisted of applying the invariant to every transaction in the dataset and confirming zero violations among non-attack flows (yielding an observed false-positive rate of 0%); (3) explicit handling of complex legitimate patterns, with examples and analysis showing that multi-hop, conditional, and DeFi-composed flows preserve end-to-end balance under the invariant because it tracks net inflows and outflows irrespective of intermediate steps or composition. These additions will make the empirical basis fully reproducible and allow direct evaluation of the compatibility claim against the observed data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical invariant validation on observed data

full rationale

The paper's core claim rests on direct empirical analysis of 10 million bridge transactions (2021-2023), where a simple inflow-outflow balance invariant is shown to hold for all observed legitimate activity while flagging known attacks. No equations, parameters, or results are defined in terms of the target outcome; the invariant is a straightforward accounting check independent of the attack set. No self-citations, fitted predictions, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing steps. The validation is data-driven and externally falsifiable by new transaction patterns, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5686 in / 1040 out tokens · 17887 ms · 2026-05-23T19:49:07.154162+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Github – 0xdatapunk/bridge-bug-tracker

    0xDatapunk. Github – 0xdatapunk/bridge-bug-tracker. https://github. com/0xDatapunk/Bridge-Bug- Tracker. Accessed 2024-08-28

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Hephaestus: Modeling, Analysis, and Performance Evaluation of Cross-Chain Transactions

    Rafael Belchior, Peter Somogyvari, Jonas Pfannschmidt, Andr ´e Vas- concelos, and Miguel Correia. Hephaestus: Modeling, Analysis, and Performance Evaluation of Cross-Chain Transactions. IEEE Transactions on Reliability , 73(2):1132–1146, June 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Evodefi bridge may be missing $66m in funds

    Tom Carreras and Mike Dalton. Evodefi bridge may be missing $66m in funds. https://cryptobriefing.com/ oasis-evodefi-bridge-may-be-missing-66m-in-funds/, 11 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Wormhole Bridge Exploit Inci- dent Analysis

    CertiK. Wormhole Bridge Exploit Inci- dent Analysis. https://www.certik.com/resources/ blog/1kDYgyBcisoD2EqiBpHE5l-wormhole-bridge- exploit-incident-analysis, July 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    CertiK. Certik. https://www.certik.com/resources/blog/ what-is-on-chain-monitoring, 11 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Chainaegis - the world’s leading ai-driven risk detection and alerting platform

    ChainAegis. Chainaegis - the world’s leading ai-driven risk detection and alerting platform. https://www.chainaegis.com/, 11 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Multichain hack worsens as loss of funds reaches $3m: Report, 2022

    CoinDesk. Multichain hack worsens as loss of funds reaches $3m: Report, 2022. Accessed: 2024-09-04

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Cubist on x — bascule drawbridge

    Cubist. Cubist on x — bascule drawbridge. https://x.com/cubistdev/ status/1849093545636036832, 11 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Instability

    Philip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li, Xueyuan Zhao, Iddo Bentov, Lorenz Breidenbach, and Ari Juels. Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Instability. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Sym- posium on Security and Privacy (S&P) , pages 910–927. IEEE, May 2020

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    https://de.fi/rekt- database

    De.Fi REKT Database. https://de.fi/rekt- database. Accessed 2024- 08-28

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Bridge V olume

    DefiLlama. Bridge V olume. https://defillama.com/bridges. Accessed 2024-08-28

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    emiliano on x: they used a proof from one of the very first cross chain tx, 09 2024

    emiliano. emiliano on x: they used a proof from one of the very first cross chain tx, 09 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    The Eye of Horus: Spotting and Analyzing Attacks on Ethereum Smart Contracts

    Christof Ferreira Torres, Antonio Ken Iannillo, Arthur Gervais, and Radu State. The Eye of Horus: Spotting and Analyzing Attacks on Ethereum Smart Contracts. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC) , pages 33–52. Springer, March 2021

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Online Detection of Effectively Callback Free Objects with Applications to Smart Contracts

    Shelly Grossman, Ittai Abraham, Guy Golan-Gueta, Yan Michalevsky, Noam Rinetzky, Mooly Sagiv, and Yoni Zohar. Online Detection of Effectively Callback Free Objects with Applications to Smart Contracts. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages , 2(POPL):1–28, 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Hexagate

    Hexagate. Hexagate. https://www.hexagate.com/real-time-prevention, 11 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Hopper: Modeling and detecting lateral movement

    Grant Ho, Mayank Dhiman, Devdatta Akhawe, Vern Paxson, Stefan Savage, Geoffrey M V oelker, and David Wagner. Hopper: Modeling and detecting lateral movement. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21) , pages 3093–3110, 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Seamlessly Transferring Assets through Layer-0 Bridges: An Empirical Analysis of Stargate Bridge’s Architecture and Dynamics

    Chuanshan Huang, Tao Yan, and Claudio J Tessone. Seamlessly Transferring Assets through Layer-0 Bridges: An Empirical Analysis of Stargate Bridge’s Architecture and Dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2024 Web Conference , pages 1776–1784, May 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Hypernative: Web3 security for chains

    Hypernative. Hypernative: Web3 security for chains. https://www. hypernative.io/solutions/chains, 11 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Ethereum Re- orgs After The Merge

    Georgios Konstantopoulos and Vitalik Buterin. Ethereum Re- orgs After The Merge. https://www.paradigm.xyz/2021/07/ ethereum-reorgs-after- the-merge, July 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Horizon: A Gas-Efficient, Trustless Bridge for Cross-Chain Transac- tions

    Rongjian Lan, Ganesha Upadhyaya, Stephen Tse, and Mahdi Zamani. Horizon: A Gas-Efficient, Trustless Bridge for Cross-Chain Transac- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06000 , January 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    SoK: Not Quite Water Under the Bridge: Review of Cross-Chain Bridge Hacks

    Sung-Shine Lee, Alexandr Murashkin, Martin Derka, and Jan Gorzny. SoK: Not Quite Water Under the Bridge: Review of Cross-Chain Bridge Hacks. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) , pages 1–14. IEEE, May 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    POLYBRIDGE: A Crosschain Bridge for Heterogeneous Blockchains

    Yue Li, Han Liu, and Yuan Tan. POLYBRIDGE: A Crosschain Bridge for Heterogeneous Blockchains. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) , pages 1–2. IEEE, May 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    SmartAxe: Detecting Cross-Chain Vul- nerabilities in Bridge Smart Contracts via Fine-Grained Static Analy- sis

    Zeqin Liao, Yuhong Nan, Henglong Liang, Sicheng Hao, Juan Zhai, Jiajing Wu, and Zibin Zheng. SmartAxe: Detecting Cross-Chain Vul- nerabilities in Bridge Smart Contracts via Fine-Grained Static Analy- sis. Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering , 1(FSE):249– 270, July 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Detecting Fake Deposit Attacks on Cross-chain Bridges from a Network Perspective

    Kaixin Lin, Dan Lin, Ziye Zheng, Yixiang Tan, and Jiajing Wu. Detecting Fake Deposit Attacks on Cross-chain Bridges from a Network Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) , pages 1–5. IEEE, May 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    ChainSwap – GitHub

    Liquid. ChainSwap – GitHub. https://github.com/liqtags/crypto-rekts/ blob/main/rekts/ ChainSwap-2.md. Accessed 2024-09-04

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    A Large Scale Study of the Ethereum Arbitrage Ecosystem

    Robert McLaughlin, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna. A Large Scale Study of the Ethereum Arbitrage Ecosystem. In Proceed- ings of the 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security) , pages 3295–3312. USENIX, August 2023

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Multichain (previously anyswap) on x

    Multichain. Multichain (previously anyswap) on x. https://x.com/ multichainorg/status/1677096839731097600, 11 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Nomad Hack Data – Github

    Nomad. Nomad Hack Data – Github. https://github.com/nomad-xyz/ hack-data. Accessed 2024-09-04

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    SoK: Cross-Chain Bridging Architectural Design Flaws and Mitigations

    Jakob Svennevik Notland, Jinguye Li, Mariusz Nowostawski, and Peter Halland Haro. SoK: Cross-Chain Bridging Architectural Design Flaws and Mitigations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00405 , March 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Another cross-chain bridge project was attacked, and Meter.io lost $4.2 million

    PANews. Another cross-chain bridge project was attacked, and Meter.io lost $4.2 million. https://new-qq-com.translate.goog/rain/a/ 20220206A05XNI00? x tr sl=zh-CN& x tr tl=en& x tr hl=en& x tr pto=sc. Accessed 2024-09-04

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Peckshield alert

    PeckShield. Peckshield alert. https://alert.peckshield.com/, 11 2024

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Smart Contract Vulnerabilities: Vulnerable Does Not Imply Exploited

    Daniel Perez and Benjamin Livshits. Smart Contract Vulnerabilities: Vulnerable Does Not Imply Exploited. In Proceedings of the 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security) , pages 1325–1341, August 2021

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    pnetwork post mortem: pbtc- on-bsc exploit

    pNetwork Team. pnetwork post mortem: pbtc- on-bsc exploit. https://medium.com/pnetwork/ pnetwork-post-mortem-pbtc-on-bsc-exploit-170890c58d5f, 11 2024

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Quantifying Blockchain Extractable Value: How dark is the forest? In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) , pages 198–

    Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, and Arthur Gervais. Quantifying Blockchain Extractable Value: How dark is the forest? In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) , pages 198–

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Qubit Finance – REKT

    rekt. Qubit Finance – REKT. https://rekt.news/qubit-rekt/. Accessed 2024-09-04

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Sereum: Protecting Existing Smart Contracts Against Re-Entrancy Attacks

    Michael Rodler, Wenting Li, Ghassan O Karame, and Lucas Davi. Sereum: Protecting Existing Smart Contracts Against Re-Entrancy Attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05934 , December 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    https://hacked.slowmist.io/?c= Bridge

    SlowMist Hacked – SlowMist Zone. https://hacked.slowmist.io/?c= Bridge. Accessed 2024-08-28

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    SlowMist. Slowmist - focusing on blockchain ecosystem security (exchange security audit — wallet security audit — blockchain secu- rity audit — smart contract security audit — security consulting — defense deployment — blockchain threat intelligence — blockchain security). https://www.slowmist.com/, 11 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Post-mortem: Eth router exploits 1 & 2, and premature return to trading incident

    THORChain. Post-mortem: Eth router exploits 1 & 2, and premature return to trading incident. https://medium.com/thorchain/ post-mortem-eth-router-exploits-1-2-and-premature-return-to-trading-incident-2908928c5fb, 11 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Thorchain incident 07.15

    THORChain. Thorchain incident 07.15. https://thearchitect.notion.site/ THORChain-Incident-07-15-7d205f91924e44a5b6499b6df5f6c210, 11 2024

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Axie Infinity’s Ronin Network Suffers $625M Exploit

    Andrew Thurman. Axie Infinity’s Ronin Network Suffers $625M Exploit. https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/03/29/ axie-infinitys-ronin- network-suffers-625m-exploit/, March 2022

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    ChainSniper: A Machine Learning Approach for Auditing Cross-Chain Smart Contracts

    Tuan-Dung Tran, Kiet Anh V o, Duy The Phan, Cam Nguyen Tan, and Van-Hau Pham. ChainSniper: A Machine Learning Approach for Auditing Cross-Chain Smart Contracts. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Information Technology (ICIIT), pages 223–230, February 2024

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    XGuard: Detecting Inconsistency Behaviors of Crosschain Bridges

    Ke Wang, Yue Li, Che Wang, Jianbo Gao, Zhi Guan, and Zhong Chen. XGuard: Detecting Inconsistency Behaviors of Crosschain Bridges. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE) , pages 612–616, July 2024

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Bridge Hack List – GitHub

    Chris Whinfrey. Bridge Hack List – GitHub. https://gist.github.com/ cwhinfrey/9fd1bbc31bbcff08fca242b90c7f875d. Accessed 2024-07- 02

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Web3 is Going Just Great

    Molly White. Web3 is Going Just Great. https://www. web3isgoinggreat.com/charts/top. Accessed 2024-08-28

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    DeFiRanger: Detecting DeFi Price Manipulation Attacks

    Siwei Wu, Zhou Yu, Dabao Wang, Yajin Zhou, Lei Wu, Haoyu Wang, and Xingliang Yuan. DeFiRanger: Detecting DeFi Price Manipulation Attacks. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , 21(4):4147–4161, July/August 2024

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    zkBridge: Trustless Cross-chain Bridges Made Practical

    Tiancheng Xie, Jiaheng Zhang, Zerui Cheng, Fan Zhang, Yupeng Zhang, Yongzheng Jia, Dan Boneh, and Dawn Song. zkBridge: Trustless Cross-chain Bridges Made Practical. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), pages 3003–3017, November 2022

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Xscope: Hunting for Cross-Chain Bridge Attacks

    Jiashuo Zhang, Jianbo Gao, Yue Li, Ziming Chen, Zhi Guan, and Zhong Chen. Xscope: Hunting for Cross-Chain Bridge Attacks. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) , pages 1–4, October 2022

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    SoK: Security of Cross-chain Bridges: Attack Surfaces, Defenses, and Open Problems

    Mengya Zhang, Xiaokuan Zhang, Josh Barbee, Yinqian Zhang, and Zhiqiang Lin. SoK: Security of Cross-chain Bridges: Attack Surfaces, Defenses, and Open Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12573 , December 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    TxSpector: Uncovering Attacks in Ethereum from Transactions

    Mengya Zhang, Xiaokuan Zhang, Yinqian Zhang, and Zhiqiang Lin. TxSpector: Uncovering Attacks in Ethereum from Transactions. In Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Se- curity), pages 2775–2792, August 2020

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    A Comprehensive Overview of Security Vulnerability Penetration Methods in Blockchain Cross- Chain Bridges

    Qianrui Zhao, Yinan Wang, Bo Yang, Ke Shang, Maozeng Sun, Hai- jun Wang, Zijiang Yang, and Haojie Xin. A Comprehensive Overview of Security Vulnerability Penetration Methods in Blockchain Cross- Chain Bridges. Authorea Preprints, October 2023

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    High-Frequency Trading on Decentralized On-Chain Exchanges

    Liyi Zhou, Kaihua Qin, Christof Ferreira Torres, Duc V Le, and Arthur Gervais. High-Frequency Trading on Decentralized On-Chain Exchanges. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) , pages 428–445. IEEE, May 2021. Appendix In this section we provide a descriptive account of each of the attacks listed in Table 2 in Section 4, ...

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Ronin bridge operates between Ethereum and the Ronin chain

    Ronin Bridge Background. Ronin bridge operates between Ethereum and the Ronin chain. It was hacked in March 2022. The attacker compromised the bridge’s private keys, allowing them to mint arbitrary amounts of assets. The attacker carried out two transactions, minting around $624 million USD worth of assets on Ethereum. Results. CrossChecked analyzed over ...

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    PolyNetwork is a cross-chain bridge that supports asset transfers between multiple blockchains (e.g., BSC, ETH, and Polygon)

    Poly Network Bridge (2021) Background. PolyNetwork is a cross-chain bridge that supports asset transfers between multiple blockchains (e.g., BSC, ETH, and Polygon). It was hacked on August 10th,

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Overall, the attacker stole around $600 million USD worth of assets on BSC, ETH, and Polygon

    The attacker exploited a bug in the bridge’s verifi- cation code, allowing them to insert their own keys and verify any malicious payload. Overall, the attacker stole around $600 million USD worth of assets on BSC, ETH, and Polygon. Results. In total, CrossChecked analyzed over 292 K bridge transactions between ETH, BSC, Polygon and Poly Net- work’s liqui...

    work page

  56. [56]

    Binance Token Hub facilitates asset trans- fers between Binance Beacon Chain and Binance Smart Chain

    Binance Token Hub Background. Binance Token Hub facilitates asset trans- fers between Binance Beacon Chain and Binance Smart Chain. It was hacked on October 7th, 2022. The attacker exploited a bug in Binance Bridge’s verification code, al- lowing them to verify carefully crafted malicious payloads. The attacker carried out the attack in two transactions, ...

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Wormhole is a general-purpose cross- chain bridge that currently supports around 35 blockchains

    Wormhole Background. Wormhole is a general-purpose cross- chain bridge that currently supports around 35 blockchains. It was hacked on February 2nd, 2022. Specifically, the attacker exploited a bug in Wormhole’s smart contract on Solana that allowed them to verify arbitrary unauthorized payload. The attacker executed one transaction and minted 120,000 wET...

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Nomad bridge support asset transfers across six blockchains

    Nomad Bridge Background. Nomad bridge support asset transfers across six blockchains. It was hacked on August 1st, 2022. The attacker exploited a bug in the bridge’s verification code, allowing them to verified any payload that had not been verified before. Shortly after the first a few attack transactions, a group of copycats joined the crusade of draini...

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    Harmony bridge operates between ETH, BSC and Harmony

    Harmony Bridge Background. Harmony bridge operates between ETH, BSC and Harmony. It was hacked on June 24, 2022. The attacker compromised two of the signing keys of the bridge, allowing them to mint arbitrary amounts of assets. In total, the attacker minted around $100 million worth of assets on BSC and ETH in 15 transactions. Results. CrossChecked analyz...

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    HECO bridge allows users to transfer assets between Huobi ECO Chain (HECO) and Ethereum

    HECO Bridge Background. HECO bridge allows users to transfer assets between Huobi ECO Chain (HECO) and Ethereum. It was hacked on November 11th, 2023. The attacker compromised the bridge’s private keys, allowing them to sign arbitrary transactions. The attacker carried out eight transactions, minting around $86 million worth of assets on Ethereum. Results...

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    Qubit bridge allows users to transfer assets between ETH and BSC

    Qubit Bridge Background. Qubit bridge allows users to transfer assets between ETH and BSC. It was hacked on January 27th,

    work page

  62. [62]

    The attacker carried out 16 transactions, stealing around $80 million worth of assets

    The attacker exploited a bug in the deposit function, which allowed them to trick the bridge into believing that a deposit had been made when it had not. The attacker carried out 16 transactions, stealing around $80 million worth of assets. Results. CrossChecked analyzed over 260 transactions and alerted on all 16 transactions

    work page

  63. [63]

    Anyswap bridge supported moving assets across many blockchains at the time of the attack

    Anyswap Bridge Background. Anyswap bridge supported moving assets across many blockchains at the time of the attack. It was hacked on July 10, 2021. The attacker exploited a bug in the bridge’s verification code, allowing them to verify any ma- licious payload. The attacker carried out three transactions, minting around $7.9 M worth of assets on Ethereum....

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    Shortly after the hack in 2021, PolyNet- work switched to a new set of smart contracts

    Poly Network Bridge (2023) Background. Shortly after the hack in 2021, PolyNet- work switched to a new set of smart contracts. It was, however, hacked again in August 10th, 2021. The attacker exploited a bug in the bridge’s verification code, allowing them to verify arbitrary payload. Overall, there were 136 reported transactions. Results. CrossChecked an...

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Chainswap bridge support token transfers between five bridges and was hacked on July 10, 2021

    Chainswap Bridge Background. Chainswap bridge support token transfers between five bridges and was hacked on July 10, 2021. The attacker exploited a bug in the bridge’s verification code, allowing them to verify any malicious payload. The attacker stole $4.4 million worth of assets on Ethereum and BSC using one address. Of particular note, unlike other br...

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    Meter bridge allows users to transfer be- tween Meter’s own chain and a few EVM-based chains

    Meter Bridge Background. Meter bridge allows users to transfer be- tween Meter’s own chain and a few EVM-based chains. It was hacked on February 5, 2022. The attacker exploited a bug in the bridge’s deposit function, where the attacker tricked the bridge into believing that a deposit had been made. In total, the attacker carried out 5 transactions, steal-...

    work page 2022