The biggest bridge hacks in 2026

In 2026, cross-chain bridges remain vulnerable. Learn why they are still one of crypto’s most dangerous weak points and why 1inch’s bridgeless cross-chain swaps are more secure.

Moving assets across chains should feel simple. You send tokens from one network and receive them on another.

But behind that simple flow sits a complex system of messages, proofs, validators, contracts and liquidity pools. If one link breaks, funds can disappear fast.

The latest reminder came from Verus Protocol’s Ethereum bridge, which was reportedly exploited for about $11.6 mln after a fake cross-chain transfer message tricked the bridge into sending funds from its reserves to an attacker-controlled wallet.

The case is still developing. But it fits a familiar pattern: bridges are not just moving tokens. They are asking one blockchain to trust information from another. That is where things get risky.

Verus: a fake message, real losses

According to the Cointelegraph report, security firms Blockaid and PeckShield flagged the Verus-Ethereum bridge exploit on May 18. The attacker reportedly drained assets including ETH, USDC and tBTC, then converted the funds into roughly 5,402 ETH.

Blockaid said the issue was not an ECDSA bypass, not a notary key compromise and not a parser bug. Instead, it pointed to missing source-amount validation in the bridge’s Solidity logic.

That detail matters. The attack was not only about stealing keys. It was about making the bridge believe that a cross-chain instruction was valid.

For DeFi, that is the scary part. A bridge can have real liquidity, real users and real contracts - but still fail if the message-to-execution logic is not strict enough.

Kelp: the biggest bridge-related hit so far

The largest bridge-related exploit reported so far in 2026 was the Kelp DAO attack. TechRadar reported that hackers allegedly stole about $290 mln after exploiting Kelp's LayerZero setup. Some security researchers have linked the attack to Lazarus Group.

LayerZero reportedly said the issue was tied to Kelp’s configuration, including its use of a single DVN. Kelp disputed that explanation. But the lesson is clear: cross-chain security is not only about the messaging protocol. It is also about how each project configures and operates it.

In the wake of the attack, 1inch participated alongside other protocols in efforts to assist with the recovery of assets affected by the incident on Aave.

Hyperbridge: small loss, big warning

Hyperbridge suffered a smaller exploit in April, but the mechanics were alarming. The attacker reportedly used a forged cross-chain message to gain control of a bridged DOT token contract, mint 1 bln bridged DOT tokens and sell them into available liquidity. Initial losses were reported at about $237,000, while a later assessment put realized losses closer to $2.5 mln.

The dollar figure was modest only because liquidity was limited.

That is an important distinction. Sometimes the exploit size does not show the real severity of the bug. A flaw that drains $2.5 mln today could drain far more tomorrow if the pool grows.

Why bridges keep breaking

Bridge hacks are rarely identical. Some involve stolen keys. Some involve fake messages. Some involve flawed validation. Some involve bad governance or operational controls.

But the core problem is usually the same.

A bridge has to answer one dangerous question:

Did something really happen on another chain?

If the answer is wrong, money can move when it should not.

That is why bridges are such attractive targets. They often hold large reserves. They connect multiple ecosystems. And they turn verification mistakes into direct withdrawals.

The old bridge problem is not solved

This is not new. The Verus Cointelegraph report compared the incident to the 2022 Nomad and Wormhole exploits, two of the most infamous bridge failures in crypto history.

What is new is that DeFi is now more interconnected. More chains. More wrappers. More message layers. More abstracted UX.

That makes the user experience better. But it also increases the number of places where a small validation gap can become a major loss.

The bigger lesson for DeFi

The recent bridge hacks show that cross-chain bridge infrastructure is still one of DeFi’s hardest problems.

The industry is moving toward a multi-chain future. That future needs safer cross-chain operations, better validation, stronger monitoring and cleaner failure modes.

One solution is already available: 1inch cross-chain swaps. Instead of bridging and swapping assets manually, you define the tokens and chains you want to move between, and the protocol executes your instructions according to your specified parameters - without taking custody of your assets at any point. Learn more about 1inch cross-chain swaps here.

Swap tokens across chains on 1inch now.