Verus Ethereum Cross-Chain Bridge Attacked Again, Losing $7.53 Million
CertiK monitoring shows that the Verus Ethereum cross-chain bridge was attacked, with approximately $7.53 million withdrawn to an address starting with 0xCFd0.
The attacker exploited a vulnerability in the bridging contract that did not verify whether the input amount on the Verus side matched the payment amount on the Ethereum side, similar to the cause of the incident in May.
Funds were quickly transferred to the attack address, and the logical flaw in the cross-chain bridge verification became a major attack surface again, leading market funds to flow towards security audits and risk hedging tools.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
The Verus protocol had already lost approximately $11.58 million in May 2026 due to the same type of missing amount verification, with attackers bypassing validation by spoofing cross-chain import payloads, a path highly similar to historical bridging vulnerabilities like Nomad and Wormhole.
Current capital remains concentrated in cross-chain liquidity pools, motivated by the pursuit of multi-chain asset efficiency, yet continuously exposed to gaps in verification logic; resource mobilization manifests as attackers low-cost spoofing of inputs for high-value outputs, while protocol parties rely on post-event monitoring and suspension.
Similar cases include the 2022 Wormhole incident of $325 million and the Nomad incident of $190 million, with the industry transitioning from "rapidly launching bridges" to mandatory bi-directional amount binding audits.
This essentially reflects a lag in technological replacement: the demand for cross-chain interoperability is growing rapidly, but the security iteration speed of verification mechanisms has not kept pace, resulting in attackers retaining pricing power.
ABAB News · Law of Cognition
Unchecked inputs are always the death switch of cross-chain bridges.
The recurrence of the same vulnerability indicates that fixes are merely superficial.
The higher the liquidity, the greater the cost of verification logic vulnerabilities.