Bridge Risks
Bridges: DeFi's Greatest Risk Zone
Cross-chain bridges are the area where the most hacks occur in DeFi. In 2022 alone, over $2B was stolen through bridge hacks.
Why bridges are targeted:
- Large concentration of funds (locked assets)
- Complex cross-chain logic
- Vulnerabilities in verification mechanisms
- New technology, immature security
Major Bridge Hacking Cases
1. Ronin Bridge (March 2022)
Damage: $625M (largest ever)
Background:
- Bridge for the Axie Infinity game
- Required 5 of 9 validator signatures
Attack:
- North Korean hacker group Lazarus
- Spear phishing attack on Sky Mavis employees
- Stole 5 validator keys
- Approved fraudulent withdrawal transactions
Lessons:
- Vulnerability of systems with few validators
- Social engineering risks
- Importance of key management
2. Wormhole (February 2022)
Damage: $320M
Background:
- Bridge connecting Solana and Ethereum
- Guardian network verification
Attack:
- Exploited smart contract bug
- Bypassed signature verification
- Minted 120,000 ETH without collateral
Aftermath:
- Jump Trading covered the losses
- Code was fixed
Lessons:
- Fatal nature of smart contract bugs
- Limitations of audits (hacked despite being audited)
3. Nomad (August 2022)
Damage: $190M
Background:
- Cross-chain messaging protocol
- Optimistic verification method
Attack:
- Bug introduced during code update
- Default value was set to "valid"
- Anyone could withdraw funds
- Massive "copycat" attack (hundreds participated)
Notable:
- Not a single hacker but many participants
- Some "white hat" hackers returned funds
Lessons:
- Security verification during upgrades
- Fatal consequences of simple bugs
4. Harmony Horizon (June 2022)
Damage: $100M
Background:
- Official bridge for Harmony chain
- Required only 2 of 5 signatures (!)
Attack:
- Only 2 validator keys stolen
- Full bridge funds withdrawn
Lessons:
- 2-of-5 multisig is too vulnerable
- Importance of security thresholds
5. Multichain (July 2023)
Damage: $125M+
Background:
- One of the largest cross-chain bridges
- Supported multiple chains
Attack/Failure:
- CEO went missing
- Internal issues or hacking
- Exact cause unknown
Lessons:
- Centralization risk
- Team risk
- Importance of transparency
Damage Summary
| Bridge | Date | Damage | Cause |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ronin | 2022.03 | $625M | Validator key theft |
| Wormhole | 2022.02 | $320M | Smart contract bug |
| Nomad | 2022.08 | $190M | Code bug |
| Multichain | 2023.07 | $125M+ | Internal issues |
| Harmony | 2022.06 | $100M | Validator key theft |
Types of Bridge Vulnerabilities
1. Smart Contract Bugs
Description:
- Code logic errors
- Input validation failures
- Reentrancy attacks
Cases:
- Wormhole: Signature verification bypass
- Nomad: Validity check bypass
Mitigation:
- Multiple audits
- Formal verification
- Bug bounty programs
2. Validator/Key Compromise
Description:
- Multisig key theft
- Validator bribery/hacking
- Social engineering
Cases:
- Ronin: 5/9 keys stolen
- Harmony: 2/5 keys stolen
Mitigation:
- Validator distribution (increase number)
- Hardware Security Modules (HSM)
- High thresholds (e.g., 6/9 or higher)
3. Oracle/Relayer Manipulation
Description:
- Cross-chain message manipulation
- False information transmission
- Relayer compromise
Mitigation:
- Multiple oracles
- Time delays
- Anomaly detection
4. Protocol Upgrade Vulnerabilities
Description:
- Bug introduction during upgrades
- Migration errors
- Incomplete testing
Cases:
- Nomad: Bug during update
Mitigation:
- Thorough upgrade testing
- Staged rollouts
- Timelocks
5. Economic Attacks
Description:
- Liquidity depletion
- Price manipulation
- Flash loan utilization
Mitigation:
- Liquidity limits
- Price oracle protection
- Rate limiting
Risks by Security Model
External Validators (MPC/Multisig)
Method: Selected validator group approves transactions
Risks:
- All funds at risk if validators compromised
- Tendency toward centralization
- Potential validator collusion
Examples: Ronin, Wormhole
Risk Level: High
Light Client
Method: Direct verification of original chain blocks
Risks:
- Bugs due to implementation complexity
- Affected if original chain is attacked
Examples: IBC, Rainbow Bridge
Risk Level: Medium
Optimistic Verification
Method: Assumes valid, with challenge period
Risks:
- Malicious transactions pass if no challengers
- Long delay times
Examples: Some rollup bridges
Risk Level: Medium
Liquidity Pools
Method: Liquidity on both chains, swap mechanism
Risks:
- Liquidity depletion
- Impermanent loss
- Smart contract risk
Examples: Stargate
Risk Level: Medium
Wrapped Token Risks
Collateral Mismatch
When a bridge is hacked, the collateral for wrapped tokens disappears.
Scenario:
- $100M ETH locked on Ethereum
- $100M WETH exists on Chain B
- Bridge hacked → Locked ETH stolen
- WETH on Chain B has no collateral → Worth 0
Results:
- WETH holder losses
- DeFi positions using WETH as collateral collapse
- Cascading liquidations
Multi-Wrapping Risk
Multiple wrapped versions of the same asset exist.
Problems:
- USDC, USDC.e, axlUSDC, cUSDC...
- Each depends on different bridges
- Fragmented liquidity
- Confusion
Risk Mitigation Strategies
1. Prioritize Official Bridges
Reasons:
- Inherits chain security
- Most thoroughly verified
- Higher chance of recovery if hacked
Downsides:
- Slow speed (Rollups: 7 days)
Apply to:
- Large transfers
- Long-term held assets
2. Split Transfers
Don't bridge everything at once.
Method:
- Small test transfer first
- Split into multiple transactions
- Use multiple bridges in parallel
3. Amount Limits
Limit the proportion of bridged assets.
Example:
- Bridge only 20% or less of portfolio
- Keep the rest on the original chain
4. Stay Informed
Check:
- Whether bridge has been audited
- Recent hacking history
- TVL changes (sudden drops are warnings)
- Team activity/transparency
5. Be Careful with Wrapped Tokens
Preference order:
- Native tokens
- Official bridge tokens
- Major protocol tokens (axlUSDC, etc.)
- Minor bridge tokens
6. Consider Insurance
Options:
- Nexus Mutual
- InsurAce
- Protocol's own insurance
Limitations:
- Full coverage difficult
- Premium costs
- Payout conditions
Bridge Security Checklist
When Choosing a Bridge
- Audit history (prefer multiple audits)
- Hacking history and response
- TVL and operating duration
- Number and distribution of validators
- Team transparency
- Bug bounty program
During Transfer
- Verify destination address exactly
- Small test transfer first
- Sufficient gas
- Check expected time
- Track transaction
After Transfer
- Confirm assets on destination chain
- Verify wrapped token version
- Check DeFi protocol support
The Future of Bridges
Technological Advances
ZK Bridges:
- Verification using zero-knowledge proofs
- Minimized trust
- Fast finality
Inter-chain Standards:
- Cosmos IBC expansion
- Common messaging standards
- Improved interoperability
Regulatory Trends
- Bridge regulation discussions
- Potential AML/KYC requirements
- Preference for centralized bridges?
Summary
Cross-chain bridges are the area with the most hacks in DeFi, with over $2B stolen in 2022 alone. Major incidents like Ronin ($625M), Wormhole ($320M), and Nomad ($190M) have been frequent. Main causes include validator key theft, smart contract bugs, and upgrade vulnerabilities. Prioritize official bridges, split transfers, and be aware of collateral risks with wrapped tokens. Bridges are convenient but high-risk infrastructure, so it's wise to use them minimally and only when necessary.
Next article: DAO Governance - Decentralized Decision Making