Cross-Chain Bridges: A Prime Target for Web3 Hackers

·

Cross-chain bridges are foundational infrastructure in the blockchain ecosystem, enabling users to transfer assets between different blockchains. As critical connectors in the decentralized world, they facilitate interoperability across networks like Ethereum, Solana, and others. However, due to the large volumes of user-staked assets they hold, cross-chain bridges have become one of the most attractive targets for cyberattacks in Web3. Over recent years, numerous high-profile exploits have highlighted serious security vulnerabilities—particularly in how these bridges are architecturally designed and managed.

This article explores two landmark incidents: the Harmony Bridge hack and the Wormhole proxy contract initialization vulnerability. Through technical analysis, we’ll uncover how seemingly small oversights can lead to catastrophic losses—and what developers and users can do to mitigate such risks.

The Harmony Cross-Chain Bridge Hack (2022)

On June 23, 2022, attackers exploited a critical flaw in the Harmony Horizon Bridge—a cross-chain bridge linking Harmony with Ethereum—resulting in the theft of approximately $97 million worth of digital assets.

The bridge was controlled by a multi-signature wallet, a common security mechanism intended to reduce risk by requiring multiple private key approvals before executing any transaction. In this case, only two out of several owners needed to confirm a transaction for it to proceed.

Smart contract: MultiSigWallet.sol

function executeTransaction(uint256 transactionId)
    public
    ownerExists(msg.sender)
    confirmed(transactionId, msg.sender)
    notExecuted(transactionId)
{
    if (isConfirmed(transactionId)) {
        Transaction storage txn = transactions[transactionId];
        txn.executed = true;
        if (external_call(txn.destination, txn.value, txn.data.length, txn.data))
            emit Execution(transactionId);
        else {
            emit ExecutionFailure(transactionId);
            txn.executed = false;
        }
    }
}

While the code logic appeared secure, the real vulnerability lay off-chain: attackers likely compromised two private keys controlling the multi-sig wallet through social engineering or phishing attacks. Once in control, they could legitimately sign and execute transactions as authorized owners—bypassing all on-chain safeguards.

👉 Discover how leading platforms secure multi-sig wallets today.

Key Takeaway: Private Keys Are the Weakest Link

No matter how robust a smart contract is, private key security remains paramount. If keys are exposed, even decentralized systems collapse into centralized points of failure. This incident underscores that:

Wormhole’s Uninitialized Proxy Contract Vulnerability

Just months before the Harmony breach, another major vulnerability emerged—one that could have led to even greater damage.

In February 2022, an anonymous white-hat hacker known as satya0x responsibly disclosed a critical flaw in Wormhole’s Ethereum-side bridge, earning a record-breaking $10 million bounty from Immunefi. This remains one of the largest bug bounties ever awarded in Web3 history.

What Is Wormhole?

Wormhole is a cross-chain communication protocol connecting Solana and Ethereum, allowing DeFi applications to leverage Solana’s speed and low fees while maintaining access to Ethereum’s vast ecosystem. It operates via smart contracts on both chains that validate and relay messages across networks.

However, the vulnerability wasn’t in message verification—it was in contract upgrade mechanics.

Understanding Proxy Contracts and Delegatecall

Ethereum smart contracts are immutable by design—once deployed, their code cannot be changed. To allow updates, developers use proxy patterns, where:

This separation enables upgrades: simply point the proxy to a new implementation.

Two popular standards exist:

The UUPS Risk: Initialization Gaps

In UUPS, the implementation contract manages its own upgrade logic—including initializing admin roles. But here's the catch:

When upgrading:

  1. The proxy’s storage (e.g., upgrader) is updated via delegatecall.
  2. The new implementation contract’s own storage remains uninitialized unless explicitly called.

If the deployer forgets to call initialize() on the new implementation directly, anyone can invoke it—and become the de facto administrator.

👉 Learn how modern protocols prevent uninitialized contract exploits.

Wormhole’s Missed Step

After Wormhole upgraded its implementation at block 13,818,843 (December 2021), the team failed to initialize the new contract. For over two months, the implementation remained vulnerable.

An attacker could:

  1. Call initialize() on the new implementation directly.
  2. Gain admin privileges.
  3. Use submitContractUpgrade() to replace logic with malicious code.
  4. Trigger selfdestruct, wiping out the implementation—and freezing all funds locked in the bridge.

This would have permanently locked millions in user assets.

The fix came on February 24, 2022 (block 14,269,474), when Wormhole finally initialized the contract:
Transaction Hash

Core Lessons from These Incidents

These cases highlight recurring themes in Web3 security:

IssueImpact
Centralized control pointsSingle point of failure despite decentralized goals
Poor key managementEnables full system compromise
Incomplete deployment proceduresLeaves backdoors open for attackers

Developers must treat every deployment step—including initialization—as mission-critical.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Why are cross-chain bridges so frequently targeted?

A: Bridges aggregate large amounts of liquidity across chains, making them high-value targets. Unlike individual dApps, a single successful attack can drain funds from multiple ecosystems at once.

Q: Can multi-sig wallets prevent hacks?

A: They raise the bar but aren’t foolproof. If multiple private keys are compromised—through phishing, malware, or insider threats—attackers can bypass multi-sig protections entirely.

Q: What is a proxy contract?

A: A proxy contract acts as a front-facing interface that delegates execution to a separate logic contract. This allows developers to upgrade functionality without migrating user data or addresses.

Q: How can uninitialized contracts be exploited?

A: If an upgradable contract isn’t properly initialized, attackers can call initialization functions first—granting themselves administrative rights and enabling malicious actions like draining funds or self-destructing the contract.

Q: Are all cross-chain bridges unsafe?

A: Not inherently. Many projects now employ formal verification, multi-layered audits, and decentralized governance to improve resilience. However, users should always assess a bridge’s audit history and operational transparency before use.

Q: How can developers avoid similar mistakes?

A: Use automated deployment scripts that include initialization checks; integrate upgrade safety guards; conduct post-deployment verification; and participate in bug bounty programs to catch issues early.

👉 See how top-tier platforms implement secure contract upgrades.

Final Thoughts

Cross-chain bridges are essential for a truly interconnected blockchain future—but they come with significant risks. As demonstrated by the Harmony and Wormhole incidents, vulnerabilities often stem not from complex cryptographic flaws, but from operational oversights and centralized trust assumptions.

For developers: prioritize secure key management, enforce strict deployment checklists, and adopt defense-in-depth strategies.

For users: diversify risk across bridges, monitor project transparency, and stay informed about audit reports and incident histories.

The path to safer Web3 infrastructure lies in combining rigorous engineering practices with community-driven vigilance.


Core Keywords: cross-chain bridge, Web3 security, smart contract vulnerability, proxy contract, multi-sig wallet, UUPS pattern, blockchain exploit, decentralized finance (DeFi)