Admin wallet interacts with flagged addresses
Chainlink CCIP's assessment for RD-F-044 — scored gray on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
Signer addresses not disclosed, so cannot conduct on-chain watchlist check for individual signers. MCMS contract transaction history does not show flagged interactions. CCIP was used as exit venue by exploit proceeds (LayerZero 2026 hack context) but CCIP was a victim recipient context, not admin participant.
Sources #
- EtherscanCCIP ManyChainMultiSig — Etherscan transactionsMCMS Etherscan — transaction history reviewed; no flagged interactions identified in visible transactionsretrieved 2026-05-16
Methodology #
Determine whether the admin/upgrader address has sent or received transactions with addresses on the curator watchlist (mixer deposits, dust-attack targets, OFAC-listed).
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →
rubric_version v1.7.0 protocol chainlink-ccip factor RD-F-044 score gray collected_at 2026-05-16 01:55:09