★ Bridge ecrecover checks result ≠ address(0)
Frax Finance's assessment for RD-F-151 — scored yellow on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
[★ bridge] FraxFerry uses a batch-hash model: Captain proposes batch hash, Crew validates, First Officer executes. No per-message ecrecover signature is used in the FraxFerry path — transactions are validated by hash comparison, not individual ecrecover calls. Fraxtal OP Stack bridge inherits standard OP Stack dispute game mechanics (not ecrecover-based validator signatures). LayerZero OFT uses DVN attestation (not ecrecover per message). The ecrecover zero-address failure pattern is structurally not applicable to the primary bridge surfaces. Yellow rather than green because FraxFerry source bytecode was not independently verified in this assessment (ToB 2022-11 audit PDF not extractable; batch-hash model confirmed only from docs).
Sources #
- AuditTrail of Bits Fraxlend+FraxFerry 2022 AuditTrail of Bits 2022-11 Fraxlend+FraxFerry audit — covered FraxFerry security (PDF not extractable; listed in profile §8 as completed engagement)retrieved 2026-05-17
- Frax FraxFerry Bridge DocsFraxFerry docs — batch-hash model: 'token hashes must match the proposed batch'; no per-message ecrecover pathretrieved 2026-05-17
Methodology #
Determine whether the bridge verifier code rejects `ecrecover` returns of `address(0)`.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →