So what really happens on the other side of a cross-chain bridge when the bridge burns? 🌉🔥 In this short intro, we point out some of the most notorious bridge exploits in recent years, where billions in value slipped through vulnerabilities that many assumed were secure. These incidents forced the entire industry to re-evaluate how we design and secure the infrastructure that holds Web3 together. Yes, bridges are essential for a multi-chain future, but they also remain one of the most targeted and fragile points in the ecosystem. Understanding their risks is a baseline for builders and investors. 👉 In the coming weeks we will be sharing some snippets on some of the lessons we've learnt on Cross-chain & Multi_chain bridges, validation, verification and liquidity limitations. Stay close 😎 Share with us some of your lessons and experiences in the comment section. #BlockchainSecurity #CrossChain #Web3Infrastructure #TrustbutVerify #LinumLabs

#storyfoundation Expose Threats to Onchain IP: Legal uncertainties, abuse potential, high costs, and chain isolation pose risks to widespread adoption, potentially centralizing power and fragmenting the ecosystem. #ouch #innovation #LKSBROTHERS #Mainnet #Winning #LKSNetwork #USA

Seedify's $SFUND bridge was exploited in a $1.2 million hack, affecting over 64,000 users on BNB Chain and highlighting a significant cross-chain security breach in the DeFi sector.

Who holds the keys in MIC? Onramp’s Multi-Institution Custody (MIC) model uses a 2-of-3 multisig vault with keys held by 3 independent institutions. Segregated onchain wallets, verification controls, and jurisdictional diversity mean no single point of failure. Learn more 👇

New on the Evercode Lab Blog! CEX vs DEX: two very different crypto architectures, but what sets them apart? 🤔 In our new article, we break down the key differences between centralized and decentralized exchanges in simple terms. You’ll learn: – How CEX provides liquidity and ease of use but relies on centralized control 🏦. – How DEX empowers users with smart contracts, privacy, and non-custodial trading 🌐. – The main contrasts in security, liquidity, and smart contract architecture ⚖️. 🔎 And don’t miss our real-world example: how our team developed a white label DEX with P2P payments, on/off-ramp integration, and a built-in DEX aggregator. 👉 Swipe through our carousel for the highlights and read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/dbtUmQ9k

Octane is now available to Circle and USDC developers 🔵 We’re thrilled to bring institutional-grade security to teams building the future of finance. Stablecoins are redefining the global financial system, and Circle is leading the way with $73B+ USDC onchain. To accelerate this growth, the Circle Alliance Program supports organizations building USDC-powered products and payments at an ever-growing scale. Members can now easily access Octane’s AI-powered vulnerability detection. Together, Octane and Circle are building the security layer for onchain money 🤝 Read the full announcement: https://lnkd.in/ewQ6QGSF

No matter if Shor's method can be implemented in the future or not, elliptic curves are still beautiful, and one of the most significant is BLS12-381 (as used with Zcash, Ethereum 2.0, Skale, Algorand, Dfinity, and many more). The equation is y^2=x^3+4 (mod p). It has two main groups, G1 and G2. If we choose G1 for our public key, then this will be pk [sk].g1, where g1 is the generator point for the G1 group, and sk is a private key scalar value. The true power of BLS12-381, is in pairing-based cryptography: https://lnkd.in/d8qfaEdJ

Reentrancy in 2025: Why devs keep stepping on the same rake Every time I see another $2M+ exploit from reentrancy, I think: "Seriously? We're still talking about this?" But the facts are stubborn. In the past year alone - at least 5 major incidents. And these aren't some student projects, but protocols with audits. Why does this still work? Because people think: "Well, I'm using ReentrancyGuard, so I'm good". And then it turns out that: Guard is on the wrong function Cross-contract reentrancy through another contract Read-only reentrancy (yes, that's a thing) Fresh example from practice: Protocol does a withdraw. Sends ETH first, then updates balance. Classic, right? But here's the kicker — they had a nonReentrant modifier. The dev just forgot there's a call to another contract inside, which doesn't have the modifier. What actually helps: Checks-Effects-Interactions isn't a mantra for juniors. It's an iron rule. • Checks — require, validate • Effects — balance = 0 • Interactions — transfer In that exact order. Always. Bonus tip: If you're writing integration with an external contract — treat it as hostile. Even if it's your own contract. Tomorrow someone might upgrade it, and hello reentrancy. Have you dealt with reentrancy in production? Or maybe seen interesting cases? #Solidity #SmartContracts #Web3 #Blockchain #Ethereum #DeFi

MetaMask rolled out a Delegation Framework this year, a system that allows you to grant wallet permissions without relinquishing full control. Very nice idea, right? But there’s an issue..… When Cyfrin audited the framework in April, they found 10 different security issues. Not small stuff either, problems that could drain funds, block access, or burn insane amounts of gas. Some of the biggest gaps include; >> Token swap manipulation (swap what you don’t intend) >> Gas traps (turn $1 fees into $100) >> Permission exploits (lock you out of your own delegation) As part of the Turbin3 research program artifacts, I spent time digging into this audit. And the deeper I went, the clearer it became: MetaMask’s Delegation Framework still has some serious holes to fix. I broke the findings down in simple terms for general understanding. What each vulnerability means, how it works, and why it matters for anyone in Web3. If you use MetaMask (or build on top of Ethereum), this one’s worth the read: https://lnkd.in/dDdhixgN Here's a link to the Audit: https://lnkd.in/dpU9B2WH

Bridges help crypto flow across different blockchains, but they’re also some of the most targeted weak points in Web3. 💥 In fact, over $2.5 billion has been stolen from bridge hacks alone. Here’s why bridges are high-risk: ✅ High value, low defense They often hold large amounts of assets in smart contracts, making them an attractive jackpot. 🔄 Cross-chain complexity Different chains = different rules. Vulnerabilities emerge when syncing transactions between chains. 👀 Centralized validation Many bridges rely on centralized or semi-centralized validators. If they’re compromised, so is the bridge. 🧱 Smart contract bugs A single overlooked bug in bridge code can expose the entire pool of funds. 👮♀️ For investigators, bridges can complicate traces: ▪️ Transactions often “disappear” on one chain and reappear on another. ▪️ Time gaps and address remapping blur the path. ▪️ Bridge exploits may delay or distort fund flow, masking laundering steps. 🔍 The takeaway: If the trail goes cold at a bridge, don’t stop. Switch chains, look for swaps, check for wrapped tokens, and trace deeper. Because sometimes the bridge isn’t just a link, it’s the crime scene. #CryptoBasics #BlockchainBridges #BreadcrumbsApp