★ Bridge ecrecover checks result ≠ address(0)
Spiko's assessment for RD-F-151 — scored not_applicable on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
[STAR CRITICAL] TAXONOMY MISMATCH — Chainlink CCIP does NOT use ecrecover for message validation. CCIP uses DON Merkle root commitment + RMN blessing + Merkle proof verification in OffRamp. No direct ecrecover call chain exists. F151 (Wormhole-class ecrecover zero-address check) was designed for validator-signer bridges that verify individual ECDSA signatures; CCIP uses OCR3 threshold signatures + Merkle proofs. The critical pattern targeted by F151 is structurally absent from CCIP's architecture. Not_applicable (taxonomy mismatch, explicitly documented).
Sources #
- GitHubCCIP OffRamp.sol — code-423n4 audit repositoryOffRamp.sol code-423n4/2024-11-chainlink — message validation via i_rmnRemote.verify() and Merkle proof against blessed root, not direct ecrecoverretrieved 2026-05-16
- Llama Risk CCIP Explainerllamarisk.com/research/explainer-series-ccip — 'CCIP uses Merkle roots rather than ecrecover signatures for transaction validation'retrieved 2026-05-16
Methodology #
Determine whether the bridge verifier code rejects `ecrecover` returns of `address(0)`.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →