Regarding the Shibarium bridge incident and the subsequent review process: there's been ongoing discussion about which independent forensic firm was actually retained to conduct the technical assessment. Given the critical nature of bridge security in the Web3 ecosystem, transparency around the audit process is essential. The independent evaluation of what went wrong—whether it was smart contract vulnerabilities, operational procedures, or infrastructure weaknesses—needs proper documentation. This raises a broader point about how projects communicate their incident response and third-party verification steps. Knowing which reputable security firm handled the forensic analysis helps the community understand the depth and credibility of the assessment.
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.
11 Likes
Reward
11
2
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
IntrovertMetaverse
· 2025-12-23 22:20
It's both an audit and forensic, and after talking for a long time, it's still unclear who did the bridge.
Blockchain security really needs some clarity; we don't want another unfinished story.
As for this third-party endorsement, it depends on who it is. Endorsement from a big company is completely different from an audit by a roadside society.
View OriginalReply0
ContractExplorer
· 2025-12-23 06:47
Another bridge security incident, what kind of trouble has Shiba Inu caused this time
Wait, which auditing company is responsible? Why does it feel like they are squeezing toothpaste to get the information out
Is it a smart contracts vulnerability or an operational issue? The blame for these two is quite different
As for transparency, Web3 has never really done it, you know that right
Regarding the Shibarium bridge incident and the subsequent review process: there's been ongoing discussion about which independent forensic firm was actually retained to conduct the technical assessment. Given the critical nature of bridge security in the Web3 ecosystem, transparency around the audit process is essential. The independent evaluation of what went wrong—whether it was smart contract vulnerabilities, operational procedures, or infrastructure weaknesses—needs proper documentation. This raises a broader point about how projects communicate their incident response and third-party verification steps. Knowing which reputable security firm handled the forensic analysis helps the community understand the depth and credibility of the assessment.