★ Bridge ecrecover checks result ≠ address(0)
Uniswap (v2 + v3)'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 #
[CRITICAL — not_applicable] No bridge signature verification in any V2 or V3 contract. No ecrecover in a bridge message validation context. Permit2 uses EIP-712 ecrecover for token approvals — this is a token-approval flow, not a bridge message verification pattern. No cross-chain message acceptance surface exists in V2 or V3.
Detail #
Profile §7: has_bridge_surface: false. No V2 or V3 contract imports a bridge message validator. Permit2 (0x000000000022D473030F116dDEE9F6B43aC78BA3) EIP-712 ecrecover is for ERC-20 permit signatures, not cross-chain message acceptance.
Sources #
- Curator noteProfile §7 and §11 — no bridge surface; Permit2 ecrecover is token-approval onlyProfile §7: has_bridge_surface: false, is_a_bridge: false. Permit2 ecrecover is EIP-712 token-approval pattern, not bridge message verification — not in scope for RD-F-151.retrieved 2026-05-12
Methodology #
Determine whether the bridge verifier code rejects `ecrecover` returns of `address(0)`.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →