Difference between revisions of "Smart contract security"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
↑ https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/smart-contract-security/
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
== Related == | == Related == | ||
* [[Vyper]] | * [[Vyper]] | ||
| + | * [[SWC Registry]] | ||
* [[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]] | * [[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]] | ||
Revision as of 22:25, 30 May 2022
- 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
- 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
Advertising:
