Difference between revisions of "Smart contract security"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
↑ https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/smart-contract-security/
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* {{Smart contract security}} | * {{Smart contract security}} | ||
* {{smart contract}} | * {{smart contract}} | ||
| − | * {{ | + | * {{Crypto security}} |
[[Category:Crypto]] | [[Category:Crypto]] | ||
Revision as of 13:01, 3 May 2024
- In 2017, $150 million worth of ETH was stolen from an organization named Parity technologies due to a critical vulnerability present in their Ethereum smart contract.
- In 2016, a DAO called Genesis DAO was compromised exploiting a security loophole in the system. $50 million worth of ETH from Genesis DAO’s crowdfunding investors were stolen.
- In August 2021 Hackers stole $613 million worth of digital currency from a company named Poly Network. They exploited a vulnerability in the digital contracts Poly Network uses, Poly Network exploit.
Related
- Vyper
- SWC Registry
- Solidify
- re-entrancy, front running, ETH send a rejection, integer overflow/underflow, DoS, Insufficient Gas briefing, RCE and many others mentioned in Smart Contracts Weakness Classification Registry
See also
- Smart contract security, Poly Network exploit, SWC Registry
- Smart contract, Solidity, Vyper, cardano, Ethereum, Blockchain Oracle, Binance Smart Chain, Truffle, DAO, Boson Protocol, Smart contract security, Solidify, Eopsin, Sourcify, Gelato, OpenZeppelin, Foundry, ERC-6900
- Crypto security, Crypto insurance, Smart contract security, CertiK, Quantstamp, ConsenSys Diligence, ChainSecurity, yAudit, TrailofBits, CryptoCurrency Security Standard (CCSS), Crypto attack surface, Hypernative.io, OpenZeppelin
Advertising:
