Get the Crypto Payment Security & Compliance Playbook
Back to Blog

Enhancing Security and Trust in EVM-Compatible Chains: Insights from BlockSec's 2024 Audits

Code Auditing
April 15, 2024

Introduction

In the dynamic landscape of the blockchain industry, security and trust are of utmost importance when it comes to EVM-compatible chains. As we delve into 2024, it is critical to grasp the key elements that shape EVM chain audits. This blog post aims to provide valuable insights into the latest trends and developments, with a focus on how BlockSec's comprehensive solutions contribute to enhancing security and trust in EVM-compatible chains.

Section 1: Proactive Security Measures and Holistic Auditing

Ensuring the robustness of EVM-compatible chains requires a proactive approach to security and a comprehensive auditing methodology. BlockSec prioritizes the implementation of proactive security measures to mitigate emerging threats. Through meticulous code reviews, system architecture analysis, and thorough penetration testing, BlockSec identifies vulnerabilities and provides actionable insights to fortify the security of EVM-compatible chains. Additionally, BlockSec adopts a holistic auditing approach, considering technical, business, and financial aspects. This comprehensive evaluation enables the identification and mitigation of potential vulnerabilities and pain points, ensuring the overall robustness and security of EVM-compatible chains.

Section 2: Expertise in Auditing EVM-Compatible Chains and Smart Contract Security

The unique characteristics of EVM-compatible chains require specialized expertise during audits. BlockSec's proficiency in auditing EVM-compatible chains allows them to navigate complexities and provide targeted solutions. By identifying platform-specific vulnerabilities and tailoring recommendations, BlockSec effectively addresses the security concerns associated with EVM-compatible chains. Moreover, BlockSec specializes in smart contract audits, ensuring the reliability and security of these crucial components within EVM-compatible chains. Through comprehensive code reviews and compliance assessments, BlockSec identifies and resolves potential vulnerabilities, enhancing the overall security and reliability of smart contracts.

Section 3: BlockSec's Advanced Countermeasures for EVM Auditing

In addition to their comprehensive auditing approach, BlockSec has developed advanced countermeasures to address the challenges associated with EVM auditing. One notable technique is differential fuzzing. By executing test cases on different versions of the virtual machine and comparing the output results, BlockSec proactively identifies vulnerabilities and inconsistencies. This approach enhances the security of EVM-compatible chains by uncovering potential issues that conventional testing methods might overlook. BlockSec's expertise in utilizing advanced techniques strengthens the auditing process and contributes to the overall security and trust of EVM-compatible chains.

Conclusion

In the ever-evolving blockchain landscape, BlockSec's comprehensive solutions, expertise in auditing EVM-compatible chains, and advanced countermeasures play a vital role in enhancing security and trust. By implementing proactive security measures, adopting a holistic auditing approach, leveraging specialized expertise, and utilizing advanced techniques like differential fuzzing, BlockSec enables users to build secure and trustworthy EVM-compatible chains. Collaborating with BlockSec ensures the long-term success and security of blockchain projects in 2024 and beyond.

Sign up for the latest updates
~$11.3M Lost: Multicall Router, Nostra | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$11.3M Lost: Multicall Router, Nostra | BlockSec Weekly

This report, covering 2026/09/14 - 2026/09/20, examines two security incidents with approximately $11.3M in combined losses, on Ethereum and Starknet. In the larger one, a multicall router accepted its own address as a dispatch target, so the nested call reached the Gateway module of a Safe wallet carrying the router's own already-authorized identity instead of the external caller's, and roughly 2,900 `aEthrsETH` was routed out of that wallet into an attacker-created Uniswap v4 pool. On Starknet, Nostra's oracle integration required a minimum of only one aggregated source, so when only two of the three configured price sources reached the aggregation, a manipulated thin-pool quote averaged with a normal quote to value `NSTR` at roughly $49.52, supporting approximately $3.5M of borrowing against overvalued collateral.

~$320M Lost: Liquid Network, Symbiosis Exploits | BlockSec
Security Insights

~$320M Lost: Liquid Network, Symbiosis Exploits | BlockSec

This report, covering 2026/09/07 - 2026/09/13, examines two security incidents that caused approximately $320M in losses, including the Liquid Network exploit of 2026/09/06 that the previous report did not cover. The larger was that Liquid Network exploit, where the rangeproof validation cache in Elements derived its key by hashing four fields — two of them variable in length — concatenated with nothing marking the boundaries between them, so a verdict recorded for one output was returned for another whose proof was never examined, letting the attacker create 4,000 unbacked L-BTC and peg out nearly all of them as bitcoin. On the Bitcoin route of the Symbiosis cross-chain bridge, spanning BNB Smart Chain, Ethereum and Rootstock, off-chain code that reads Bitcoin deposits took the depositor's identity from a field the depositor controls and then subtracted its fee from the deposit without checking whether the fee itself was negative, letting a 330-satoshi deposit mint `46,116,860,184.27388234 syBTC`; the pools it had to be sold through held only 11.26 syBTC, so the loss to liquidity providers and users came to an estimated 9.97 BTC (~$770K).

~$9.4M Lost: Injective, Aquifer Exploits | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$9.4M Lost: Injective, Aquifer Exploits | BlockSec Weekly

During the past week (2026/08/31 - 2026/09/06), four security incidents caused approximately $9.4M in losses across Injective, Solana, Ethereum, and Flow EVM. The largest was the Injective exploit, where an insurance fund identifier collided with a binary options market identifier and the settlement path never compared their denominations, draining about $4.8M; Aquifer on Solana lost about $2.47M because its swap path invoked an unvalidated caller-supplied Token Program, and Notional Finance V1 on Ethereum lost about $1.73M to an unchecked `uint128` cast that valued a debt at zero. Ankr FLOW on Flow EVM closed out the week with about $410K drained through a staking entry point that skipped its pause guard and minted against a stale ratio.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

Validate design, code, and business logic before launch. Aligned with the highest industry security standards.

BlockSec Audit
Enhancing Security and Trust in EVM-Compatible Chains: Insights from BlockSec's 2024 Audits