🚨 Do you think projects audited by security companies are safe? Wrong!

Just seven days after its launch, the IPC token was exploited by attackers using vulnerabilities to bypass flash loan protection mechanisms, easily stealing user assets and causing a loss of $590,000! Even more outrageous, this incident once again exposes the industry truth that 'security companies may also be unsafe.' Is the token you invested in really safe?

Let's clear the fog and see the secrets hidden behind this attack, and why 'security audits' are turning into a 'security show'!

🌪️ Attack review: How did $590,000 evaporate in an instant?

In this attack, the IPC token was precisely exploited by attackers due to design flaws:

1. Deflation mechanism issues

The IPC token introduced an automatic destruction deflation mechanism but failed to set proper limiting conditions, allowing attackers to manipulate the token destruction process and easily change supply rules.

2. Flash loan protection is virtually nonexistent

Flash loans are tools for large-scale borrowing of assets in a short period, but the IPC token's protection mechanism has vulnerabilities, allowing attackers to carry out this 'perfect crime.'

The final outcome? Attackers profited $590,000, while users' assets are gone forever.

🔍 Why do security companies frequently fail?

We are accustomed to believing that audit companies are the 'guardians' of blockchain, but reality often disappoints:

🕒 Auditing is a 'process'

Security companies have limited resources and often handle numerous projects with 'standardized' audits. Many hidden vulnerabilities are not thoroughly tested before going live.

🧩 Innovative mechanisms become hotbeds for vulnerabilities

Deflation mechanisms like the IPC token, due to complex logic and difficulty in assessing security, have become hotspots for vulnerabilities, and audit companies failed to provide early warnings.

💰 Commercialization outweighs technical depth

Audit fees are high, but some security companies focus more on the volume of contracts rather than technical expertise, and 'security reports' gradually turn into marketing tools.

🤔 Reflection: Is 'security' really secure?

This incident forces us to rethink several questions:

1. Are audit reports really reliable?

Auditing cannot eliminate vulnerabilities; it can only reduce risks. Over-reliance on audit reports often leads to overlooking potential dangers.

2. Does the project party really value security?

Some projects, in order to launch quickly and attract users, are willing to overlook security risks, even treating audits as a 'formal process.'

3. Do industry standards need to be raised?

Without more transparent and stricter audit standards, such security incidents may occur frequently.

✅ How can users protect themselves?

How can ordinary investors avoid pitfalls in the face of frequent security issues? Here are some suggestions that may help you:

🔥 Beware of high-yield projects

Any project claiming 'super high returns' may hide significant risks, especially complex deflation mechanisms.

🛠️ View audit details

It's not only important to see if a project has been audited, but also to pay attention to the potential risks mentioned in the report and whether the project party is actively fixing vulnerabilities.

🌐 Follow security dynamics

Stay updated with the latest reports from security agencies like CertiK, and withdraw potentially problematic assets at the first opportunity.

📊 Diversifying investments reduces risk

Do not put all your assets in one project; diversifying investments can effectively reduce the likelihood of capital loss.

💬 Who will protect the 'guardians of security'?

The IPC token incident serves as a reminder that in the blockchain world filled with opportunities and risks, there is no absolute security. Security companies are not a万能 shield, and audit reports are not amulets.

In the face of increasingly complex technologies and vulnerabilities, investors need to remain vigilant at all times, while the industry also needs stricter audit standards and more transparent risk disclosure mechanisms.

Do you think there is room for improvement in security companies? Or how much do you trust audit institutions? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!

🔥 Who defines the meaning of 'security'? We want to hear your voice! $ICP