Back to Blog

LI.FI Attack: a Cross-chain Bridge Vulnerability? No, It’s Due to Unchecked External Call!

Code Auditing
March 21, 2022

According to the report from the LI.FI project and the Daniel Von Fange's twitter, we notice the LI.FI attack on March 20th, 2022. Since there is no detailed technical analysis of this vulnerability, we further analyze the attack in the following. We find the root cause of this attack is unchecked external call.

Attack Transaction

We started from the attack transaction to illustrate the attack process. The following screenshot shows the result of our transaction visualization system.

As shown in the above picutre, the whole attack process is fairly simple, which has no malicious smart contracts deployed and no flashloan involved. The only step the attacker performed is invoking the swapAndStartBridgeTokensViaCBridge(0x01c0a31a) function of the CBridgeFacet contract, which then transfers various of tokens (e.g. USDC, MATIC, RPL, GNO, USDT, MVI, AUDIO, AAVE, JRT, and DAI.) from different spenders to the EOA controllered by the attacker.

Code Analysis

We then dive in to the codes of the victim logic contract.

The codes of
The codes of
The codes of
The codes of

According to the above code, the swapAndStartBridgeTokensViaCBridge is an entrance of a cross-chain transaction in the source chain.

The LIFI project claims they can find the best route for users, named Smart Routing that is happening off-chain. In particular, front-end website computes the best route and encodes the parameters (including swap contract and routing path) into the parameters of the swapAndStartBridgeTokensViaCBridge function.

Clearly, the LIFI project does not consider that the function can be invoked by any accounts on blockchain, since the function performs no checks on the parameters, such as white-list and swap slippage. The most serious part is that the CBridgeFacet contract requires users to approve tokens, which causes the users' money at risk.

Profit

As a result, the attacker steals the money of LIFI users who approved their tokens to the CBridgeFacet contract by invoking the swapAnStartBridgeTokensViaCBridge function, which then invokes the transferFrom functions of different tokens. The loss statistics are shown in below table. The total losses are around $596K, which basically the same with the statistics from the LIFI project.

Token Amount Price
GNO 0.94 310.22
USDC 202,012.28 0.999655
MATIC 3,144.89 1.46
AUDIO 1,202.37 1.10
AAVE 8.99 149.99
RPL 44.86 31.2
MVI 22.95 131.82
USDT 368,745.29 1
DAI 8,421.49 0.999847
JRT 136,805.06 0.03789613

Lessons

This LIFI is a cross-chain bridge aggregator, and the victim contract is the entrance of the cross-chain transfer. The vulnerability is not due to complicated cross-chain logic, which has been shown in the previous security incidents in the corss-chain bridge. Instead, the root cause of this attack is the unchecked external call that is one of the top-10 common issues in solidity.

Since the DeFi projects becoming more complex, the project developers need to pay more attentions to write safe codes in addition to writing correct business codes. We strongly recommend that the project should NOT deploy unaudited contracts on blockchains.

About BlockSec

BlockSec is a pioneering blockchain security company established in 2021 by a group of globally distinguished security experts. The company is committed to enhancing security and usability for the emerging Web3 world in order to facilitate its mass adoption. To this end, BlockSec provides smart contract and EVM chain security auditing services, the Phalcon platform for security development and blocking threats proactively, the MetaSleuth platform for fund tracking and investigation, and MetaDock extension for web3 builders surfing efficiently in the crypto world.

To date, the company has served over 300 esteemed clients such as MetaMask, Uniswap Foundation, Compound, Forta, and PancakeSwap, and received tens of millions of US dollars in two rounds of financing from preeminent investors, including Matrix Partners, Vitalbridge Capital, and Fenbushi Capital.

Official website: https://blocksec.com/

Official Twitter account: https://twitter.com/BlockSecTeam

Sign up for the latest updates
Web3 Attack Surfaces: A Penetration Testing Overview
Security Services

Web3 Attack Surfaces: A Penetration Testing Overview

Crypto institutions keep every traditional attack surface and add the money-handling chain on top of it. This article gives testers a practical abstraction of the running system: a four-component model—Application, Authorization and Signing, Blockchain Interaction, and Infrastructure—with each component's responsibility, representative implementations, and inherited attack surfaces. It then structures web3-specific coverage into five attack-surface areas, from production and automation operations through signing intent, approval and withdrawal chains, and fund logic to on-chain transactions and deployed contracts.

~$23M Lost: Cosmos EVM, Moonwell Exploits | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$23M Lost: Cosmos EVM, Moonwell Exploits | BlockSec Weekly

During the reporting period (2026/08/22 - 2026/08/30), we cover 5 blockchain security incidents totaling approximately $22.7M in losses; an estimated $74M-$119.5M was drained from Tectonic, most of it erased when Cronos was rolled back to its pre-exploit state. The highlight is a six-chain Cosmos EVM exploit series (~$5.7M realized), traced on TAC Chain, where a shared balance-synchronization bug chained an underflow and an overflow to drain a staking pool. The report also analyzes Moonwell's combined collateral-accounting and oracle price manipulation, Tectonic's combined oracle-price and receipt-token exchange-rate manipulation of low-liquidity collateral, an Ajna liquidation business-logic flaw, and a Rain Card Contract Exploit Series with an Ed25519 signature-verification bypass (Avici, Tria, and others) on Solana.

Rules of Engagement and Production Safety for Institutional Blockchain Penetration Testing
Security Services

Rules of Engagement and Production Safety for Institutional Blockchain Penetration Testing

A penetration test that touches signing, withdrawal, and ledger systems is prepared before it runs. This article follows the engagement lifecycle: turning a business decision into objective, scope, named owners, and authorized access; recording authority, permitted techniques, operating limits, prohibited activity, communications, and evidence handling in a Rules of Engagement document; and protecting live service with measurable stop criteria, monitoring, change coordination, and named pause authority. It closes with the remediation and retest that turn findings into validated controls.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

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

BlockSec Audit