The overpass free#

The pattern of traffic injuries in developing countries reflects their high pedestrian populations, rapid motorization, and poor state of the road infrastructure 13. Hospital-based trauma registries in two hospitals also showed pedestrians as the leading category of road users (45.8%) presenting with serious traffic injuries as assessed using the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS<13) 12. In Uganda 11, hospital-based studies showed pedestrians as the most frequent traffic casualties (43.5%), followed by vehicle occupants (31.9%). In Zambia, they accounted for two-thirds of fatalities and over half of road traffic casualties in urban areas compared to only 30% of fatalities and 12% of total casualties in the rural areas 10. A study in Ethiopia showed them accounting for 85% of casualties in Addis Ababa in 1991 and yet only 40% nation wide 9. Pedestrians are most susceptible, representing 70% of traffic fatalities in most developing countries 7, and the larger proportion of traffic injuries on urban roads 8.

In Uganda, they are the leading cause of injury fatalities and disabilities in urban areas 6. In low and middle income countries, road traffic crashes are also a big problem, estimated to cost between 1–3 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) 5. The Global Burden of Disease Study 3 projected road traffic deaths to be 1.39 million in the year 2000, and traffic injury to be the third leading cause of disability adjusted life-years 4 by the year 2020. In 1998, they were responsible for 1,170,698 million deaths, ranking tenth among the leading causes of death globally 2. It claimed that the Nomad episode “seriously damages initial Evmos ,” and it would be “brainstorming community solutions.Road traffic crashes have been highlighted as a major global public health problem 1. One of Nomad’s more recent blockchains, Evmos, tweeted reacted to the incident too. While cross-chain bridges have enabled the spread of fledgling blockchains, bridge failures can be disastrous for smaller chains that depend on them for a significant portion of their overall liquidity. I’m going to give the money back.” More and more bridge attacksīridge attacks have increased in frequency in recent months as cryptocurrency users have shown a greater desire to transfer funds between various blockchains. In fact, Nomad was contacted by one user who tweeted, As a result, interactions between smart contracts and normal transactions using MoonBeam will no longer be possible.Īt least one person has publicly stated their intention to pose as a white hat hacker who will restore the money taken from the bridge so far. The MoonBeam network has essentially been put on hold while the team investigates. Disregard comms from all channels other than Nomad’s official channel.” We aren’t yet providing instructions to return bridge funds. “We’re aware of impersonators posing as Nomad and providing fraudulent addresses to collect funds. Additionally, the business warned users to watch out for imposters. Beware of Impersonators!Īfter learning about the issue, Nomad informed its users about it. The incident saw WBTC, Wrapped Ether (WETH), USD Coin (USDC), Frax (FRAX), Covalent Query Token (CQT), Hummingbird Governance Token (HBOT), IAGON (IAG), Dai (DAI), GeroWallet (GERO), Card Starter (CARDS), Saddle DAO (SDL), and Charli3 (C3) tokens being drained out from the bridge. All you had to do was find a transaction that worked, find/replace the other person's address with yours, and then re-broadcast it

The overpass free#

The Nomad attack was free for all, unlike some bridge attacks where a single perpetrator is responsible for the entire vulnerability.ġ1/ This is why the hack was so chaotic – you didn't need to know about Solidity or Merkle Trees or anything like that. The Nomad bridge may thus be used by users to withdraw money that did not genuinely belong to them. This is what happened in Nomad’s case, making them worthless.Ī researcher at the cryptocurrency investment company Paradigm,, explained on Twitter that a recent change to one of Nomad’s smart contracts made it simple for users to counterfeit transactions. The wrapped tokens lose their backing if the smart contract where they were initially deposited is compromised. Bridges typically function by reissuing tokens in “wrapped” form on a different chain after locking them up in a smart contract on one network.