Shiba Inu Dev Issues New Security Update On Shibarium Bridge

bitcoinist发布于2025-09-22更新于2025-09-23

文章摘要

Shiba Inu core developer Kaal Dhairya has issued a detailed security update following the September 12 incident that exploited validator...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Shiba Inu core developer Kaal Dhairya has issued a detailed security update following the September 12 incident that exploited validator signing power on the Shibarium PoS bridge to push a malicious state/exit and withdraw multiple assets. The post, published on September 21, 2025 outlines what happened, what has been done so far, and what will govern a phased restoration once independent reviews conclude.

Shiba Inu Core Dev Shares Another Update

In a personal foreword that framed both the technical and human dimensions of the episode, Dhairya opened by distancing himself from any singular leadership mantle and reiterated the original ethos driving his work. “I want to clarify first: I’m not ‘the lead.’ I never was and never want to be. I’m just a builder who bet on SHIB’s ethos,” he wrote, adding that “in moments like these, you realize you may have just been a pawn in the whole game.”

The Shiba Inu core dev cautioned that, given “the sophistication of this attack,” he could not presently vouch for the safety of any existing keys, and he signaled fatigue with expectations that individual contributors could “keep it all together” without broader structural support.

The account of the incident describes how, at 18:44 UTC on September 12, “unauthorized validator signing power was used to push a malicious state/exit through the PoS bridge.” The method, per the update, combined short-lived stake amplification with malicious checkpoint/exit proofs to authorize withdrawals. Post-incident on-chain activity linked to the attacker is said to include sales of portions of ETH, SHIB and ROAR, though the team is withholding the “evolving wallet graph” while containment and coordination with authorities continue. “We’ll release the full technical narrative after doing so no longer increases risk,” the post states.

Immediate measures include restricting specific bridge operations to prevent new unauthorized exits, upgrading and gating contract pathways covering deposits, withdrawals, claims and rewards, and applying “targeted defensive controls against misuse of delegated stake.” The team says it recovered and secured at-risk BONE at the stake-manager level and notes that any short-term BONE stake under the attacker remains “effectively immobilized” by interventions and protocol mechanics.

Key and custody hygiene steps have involved rotating validator signers and migrating contract control to multi-party hardware custody, while live monitoring and automated alerts continue in coordination with exchanges, external security researchers, incident-response firms and relevant authorities.

The update also engages frequently asked questions about validator compromise and operational accountability. It says validator signing keys were “primarily stored in AWS KMS, with rare usage on developer machines,” and that ultimate responsibility for key management lies with operational leadership. While a single intrusion vector has not been confirmed, preliminary possibilities include a developer machine compromise, a cloud KMS compromise, exposure during an AWS-to-GCP migration, or a supply-chain attack, such as via npm.

The post acknowledges decentralization shortcomings underscored by the fact that “10 of 12 validators” signed the malicious state, and it commits to greater validator decentralization, stronger key-rotation policy, tighter custody, improved disclosures, and higher due-diligence thresholds for sensitive access.

A roadmap preview sets out four gated phases. “Containment” remains ongoing with restricted bridge functionality and live monitoring; “Hardening,” in collaboration with Hexens, includes signer/validator hygiene, policy-level controls such as rate limits, challenge windows and circuit-breakers, and deny-list extensions where technically appropriate.

Next, “Safe Restoration” will not begin until independent reviews sign off on mitigations, post-incident integrity checks pass and drills on test environments succeed, with restoration executed in phases and with rollback levers; finally, a comprehensive technical postmortem will precede a community-reviewed remediation path for affected users and liquidity, with the update noting that “token-specific approaches may differ.”

Timelines remain intentionally unspecified: “We won’t publish dates that could be gamed by an adversary,” the team writes, reiterating that updates will post to official channels.

For Shiba Inu token holders and victims, the message is blunt: beware of scams, ignore unverified “recovery/claim portals,” and expect bridge restrictions to persist “until we confirm it’s safe to restore.” Questions about bridging back to Ethereum, the timing of bridge resumption, validator rotation and full audit all receive the same answer—safety first, details to follow when security allows. On fund recovery and potential compensation, the team says options are being evaluated and any proposal will be published for community review “once viable and secure.”

The Shiba Inu developer closes by reaffirming priorities and situating communication within a disciplined cadence. “Our priorities are unchanged: protect users, secure the network, contain the attacker, and restore services safely.” The next major communication, he writes, will be the technical postmortem and a remediation proposal “once the environment is safe for full disclosure.”

At press time, Shiba Inu traded at $0.00001207.

Shiba Inu price
Shiba Inu price downtrend continues, 1-week chart | Source: SHIBUSDT on TradingView.com
Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Jake Simmons has been a Bitcoin enthusiast since 2016. Ever since he heard about Bitcoin, he has been studying the topic every day and trying to share his knowledge with others. His goal is to contribute to Bitcoin's financial revolution, which will replace the fiat money system. Besides BTC and crypto, Jake studied Business Informatics at a university. After graduation in 2017, he has been working in the blockchain and crypto sector. You can follow Jake on Twitter at @realJakeSimmons.

你可能也喜欢

加密独角兽 Blockstream 深陷严重欺诈始末

今年以来,比特币先驱Adam Back及其创立的Blockstream频繁引发争议。本月初,调查账号NatInfoSec发布长文,指控Blockstream发行的比特币矿业票据(BMN)可能存在严重问题。 指控核心包括:1. **算力与兑付能力存疑**:根据BMN的兑付义务,Blockstream需运营远超其公开显示的算力(约15 EH/s),但未在公开渠道找到相匹配的矿场、电力或算力证据。票据条款允许其以任意来源的BTC进行兑付,透明度不足。2. **高收益与高风险**:相关票据提供高达20%的固定年化收益,在波动剧烈的挖矿行业中难以持续,资金来源成疑。3. **关键人物前科与披露问题**:Blockstream矿业业务的重要关联方、Exacore CEO Christopher Cook曾被判邮件欺诈罪,但此前未在发行文件中披露,其背景陈述也存在夸大。4. **牵连BSTR上市计划**:质疑者担心BMN的潜在风险可能波及Adam Back关联的、正筹备SPAC上市的Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company(BSTR),尽管其法律独立性尚不明确。 BitMEX Research随后发表评论,承认Cook的前科属实且高收益令人担忧,但认为其他部分指控证据不足或存在误导,例如BMN与BSTR在法律上可能独立。社区争论焦点集中于Blockstream矿场算力的**可验证性**——投资者能否独立核查支撑收益的真实挖矿活动。 目前,围绕BMN仍存在几个关键疑问:实际发行规模与责任边界、矿场算力是否足以支撑兑付、近20%固定收益的具体来源、兑付资金的链上可验证性,以及Cook的实际角色。Blockstream尚未对此作出系统性回应。尽管指控有待最终证实,但BMN产品在透明度、风险披露和收益合理性方面,确实存在需要厘清的空间。

marsbit1小时前

加密独角兽 Blockstream 深陷严重欺诈始末

marsbit1小时前

加密独角兽 Blockstream 深陷严重欺诈始末

今年以来,比特币先驱Adam Back及其创办的Blockstream频陷争议。年初,美国司法部文件披露Jeffrey Epstein曾通过关联基金投资Blockstream;四月,《纽约时报》将其列为中本聪有力候选人;同时,其关联的比特币财库公司BSTR正筹划通过SPAC上市。 然而,本月初调查账号NatInfoSec发布长文,指控Blockstream旗下挖矿票据(BMN)存在严重问题。文章核心质疑包括:1. **算力与兑付能力存疑**:根据BMN兑付义务,Blockstream需运营20 EH/s以上算力,但其仪表盘显示实际仅15 EH/s,且公开渠道(如电网记录、矿池数据)未见匹配的大规模矿场证据。BMN条款允许其以任意来源的BTC兑付,缺乏透明度。2. **高收益与高风险**:BMN票据承诺的年化收益高达近20%,在波动剧烈的挖矿行业中难以持续,且部分到期本金滚入更高收益新票据,引发庞氏担忧。3. **关键人物前科与披露问题**:负责矿业的Exacore公司CEO Christopher Cook曾因邮件欺诈被判刑,此记录未在BMN文件中披露,其“NASA任职”经历亦被指夸大。4. **关联BSTR/SPAC的潜在风险**:文章质疑Cook的前科及BMN巨额负债未在BSTR上市文件中披露,可能存在治理与责任边界不清问题。 对此,BitMEX Research认为部分指控证据不足,例如BMN与BSTR法律结构独立,Cook非BSTR董事故无强制披露义务。但社区争论焦点集中于**算力与收益的可验证性**:投资者能否独立核实支撑BMN兑付的真实矿场算力与BTC来源? 目前Blockstream尚未系统回应。事件凸显BMN产品在规模、收益来源、资产验证及关键人员披露方面仍需澄清,其高固定收益在周期性强的挖矿行业中风险显著。

链捕手3小时前

加密独角兽 Blockstream 深陷严重欺诈始末

链捕手3小时前

交易

现货
合约
活动图片