2026-01-06 20:29:04

Security incidents on the Flow blockchain have sparked widespread concern. According to the official post-incident technical analysis, the attacker exploited a type confusion vulnerability in the Cadence VM to successfully forge tokens. This event exposed potential risks at the virtual machine level.

It is estimated that approximately $3.9 million worth of assets were transferred out of the network via multiple cross-chain bridges before the suspension, involving mainstream cross-chain protocols such as Celer, deBridge, Stargate, and Relay. This highlights a key issue for the industry—the fragility of cross-chain security.

Fortunately, most of the forged assets have been contained on-chain or are under control by the relevant teams and ecosystem partners. However, this incident also serves as a wake-up call for developers and users: security audits of smart contracts and cross-chain risk assessments need to be more cautious. The subsequent fix plans and compensation mechanisms from Flow are also worth关注.

FLOW1.6%

CELR-1.03%

DBR-2.23%

STG1.89%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

Deconstructionist

· 01-07 07:55

Type confusion vulnerabilities directly forge tokens, and it's outrageous when issues occur at the VM layer. This is truly a fundamental infrastructure risk. Cross-chain bridges have become escape routes. Every time this happens, I become more convinced of single-chain solutions. With a leak of 3.9 million, most can still be recovered—luckily—but we need to reflect on the entire verification mechanism.

View OriginalReply0

InfraVibes

· 01-06 20:59

It's the VM layer's fault again. Cadence got hit pretty hard this time. $3.9 million was stolen, and the cross-chain bridge really needs to be re-evaluated. But it seems that Flow responded quite quickly and didn't let the fake coins completely poison the ecosystem, which is worth praising. Honestly, this incident makes me increasingly distrustful of the security guarantees of new public chains. Once the compensation plan is announced, we'll see how Flow handles the aftermath to judge their sincerity.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoPhoenix

· 01-06 20:56

Another virtual machine vulnerability, another cross-chain bridge... Really, this wave of decline is actually building momentum for the next round of audits. $3.9 million USD flowed out, sounds pretty scary, but I give positive feedback that the assets are still controlled; at least it hasn't completely fallen apart. Before rebirth, you must go through this kind of test. Let's patiently wait for Flow's repair plan. Smart contract security audits should have been taken seriously long ago. In a bear market, focus on defense; in a bull market, then attack... This logic should be sound, right? The bottom range is like this—opportunities and risks coexist. Faith is still here, so are the opportunities. Cross-chain issues definitely require more caution... Remember, the most important time to stay sober is when losing money. --- Wait, can Flow recover this time? Feels like confidence is wavering. --- That's why risk diversification is important, brother. Don't go all-in on any single chain. --- Vulnerabilities at the virtual machine layer... Developers have been taught a lesson this time. Retail investors are suffering too, but value reversion will eventually come. --- It's time to rebuild your mindset, everyone. Don't panic.

View OriginalReply0

OnlyOnMainnet

· 01-06 20:55

Type confusion vulnerability? That's why I never trust cross-chain bridges. $3.9 million just gone like that. Flow took a huge hit this time. Who would have thought there was a hole at the VM layer? Fortunately, the assets weren't all drained, but how many people are going to be trapped? Smart contract audits really need to be taken seriously, or else the next one could be you. Let's see how they compensate, that's the real key.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-26d7f434

· 01-06 20:54

Type confusion vulnerability… once again a problem at the virtual machine layer. To put it simply, the infrastructure is not robust enough. $3.9 million flowed out. The cross-chain bridge is really a sieve. Most assets are frozen, which is somewhat lucky; otherwise, it would have caused a major explosion.

View OriginalReply0

Web3Educator

· 01-06 20:47

type confusion in the VM layer? fundamentally speaking, this is what happens when you skip the pedagogical fundamentals. as i always tell my students, you can't just patch your way out of architectural debt—let me break this down for you

Reply0

ETH_Maxi_Taxi

· 01-06 20:42

That's why I've always said that cross-chain solutions are too fragile... $3.9 million, brother. --- VM-level vulnerabilities are truly an infrastructure issue. We need to thoroughly check if other chains have similar pitfalls. --- It's another cross-chain bridge. When will these protocols finally be truly secure? Always on edge. --- Fortunately, not all assets were lost, but this lesson is deep. Flow must provide a reliable compensation plan. --- Type confusion... The Cadence design really has issues; it needs to be fixed from the source. --- $3.9 million just gone like that. Being able to contain it is already good; other chains should learn from this. --- How many times have I said that cross-chain risks are a concern? One chain alone isn't safe enough, and they still want to cross. --- How was Flow's audit conducted? How did such a basic vulnerability slip through?

View OriginalReply0

RatioHunter

· 01-06 20:39

Type confusion vulnerability? Ha, that's why I never hold a heavy position on a chain before it has been thoroughly audited. $3.9 million flowed out... Cross-chain protocols are really fragile, they should have strengthened risk control earlier. Fortunately, it didn't blow up completely, but this is definitely a long-lasting lesson. In the future, any new chain should be approached with caution.

View OriginalReply0