🚨 Você acha que projetos auditados por empresas de segurança são seguros? errado!

O token IPC lançado há apenas 7 dias foi explorado por um invasor para contornar o mecanismo de proteção de empréstimos instantâneos e roubar facilmente os ativos do usuário, causando uma perda de US$ 590.000! O que é ainda mais escandaloso é que este incidente expôs mais uma vez a verdade da indústria de que “as empresas de segurança também podem ser inseguras”. Os tokens em que você investe são realmente seguros?

Vamos atravessar a névoa e ver o que está por trás desse ataque e por que uma “auditoria de segurança” está se transformando em um “show de segurança”!

🌪️ Análise do ataque: como $ 590.000 evaporaram em um instante?

In this attack, IPC tokens were exploited due to design flaws by the attackers:

1. Issues with deflationary mechanisms

The IPC token introduced a deflationary mechanism with automatic destruction, 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 ineffective

Flash loans are tools for large-scale asset borrowing in a short time, but the protective mechanisms for IPC tokens have vulnerabilities, allowing attackers to carry out this 'perfect crime'.

What was the final result? The attacker profited $590,000, while the users' assets were lost forever.

🔍 Why do security companies frequently fail?

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

🕒 Audit 'going through the motions'

Security companies have limited resources, often resorting to 'standardized' audits for numerous projects. Many hidden vulnerabilities have not been thoroughly tested before going live.

🧩 Innovative mechanisms become breeding grounds for vulnerabilities

Deflationary mechanisms like IPC tokens, due to their complex logic and difficult security assessments, become hotspots for vulnerabilities, and audit companies failed to provide early warnings.

💰 Commercialization outweighs technical depth

Audit costs are high, but some security companies focus more on the number of contracts than on technical capabilities, turning 'security reports' into marketing tools.

🤔 Reflection: Is 'security' really secure?

This incident forces us to rethink several questions:

1. Are audit reports really reliable?

Audits cannot eliminate vulnerabilities; they can only reduce risks. Over-reliance on audit reports often leads to neglecting potential dangers.

2. Does the project team really care about security?

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

3. Should industry standards be raised?

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

✅ How can users protect themselves?

In light of frequent security issues, how can ordinary investors avoid pitfalls? Here are a few suggestions that might help you:

🔥 Beware of high-yield projects

Any project claiming 'ultra-high returns' may hide significant risks, especially complex deflationary mechanisms.

🛠️ Check audit details

Not only should we look at whether the project has been audited, but also pay attention to the potential risks mentioned in the report, as well as whether the project team is actively fixing vulnerabilities.

🌐 Follow security dynamics

Pay close attention to the latest reports from security institutions like CertiK, and evacuate potentially problematic assets in a timely manner.

📊 Diversifying investments reduces risks

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

💬 Who will guard the 'guardians of security'?

The IPC token incident reminds us once again that in the world of blockchain, filled with opportunities and risks, there is no absolute security. Security companies are not a panacea, and audit reports are not talismans.

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

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

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