# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Security

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "Security", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

AI Relay Stations: The Hidden Pitfalls Behind Low Costs, How to Screen and Avoid Them?

AI Relay Stations: The Hidden Risks Behind Low Costs and How to Avoid Pitfalls AI relay stations are becoming a popular gateway to various models, offering lower prices, a wider selection, and a unified interface for tools like Claude Code and Cursor. However, their appeal masks significant risks. Users may unknowingly surrender prompts, code, business documents, customer data, and even full project contexts. The demand is driven by genuine needs: cost savings compared to expensive official APIs (e.g., GPT, Claude), easier access amid regional restrictions, and the push from AI-powered development tools. But not everyone needs a relay station. Light users should exhaust free official quotas first. Heavy users, like developers, can adopt a layered approach, using top models for critical tasks and cheaper local models for routine work. If a relay station is necessary, follow a careful selection and usage protocol: 1. **Verify First:** Test model authenticity, latency, and stability before purchasing credits. Check the quality of provided documentation. 2. **Isolate Configuration:** Use unique API keys for each service, manage them via environment variables, and set usage limits to control costs and potential damage from leaks. 3. **Classify Your Data:** Develop a habit of data grading before sending requests. Only send non-sensitive, public information directly. Desensitize semi-sensitive data (e.g., internal documents) by removing names and specifics. Never send highly sensitive data like passwords, private keys, or confidential customer information. 4. **Handle AI Coding Tools Separately:** Tools like Cursor can send extensive project context (file contents, directory structures, error logs). Use relay stations only for independent, non-core code tasks. For sensitive projects, switch back to official APIs or local models. 5. **Monitor and Prepare an Exit:** Regularly check billing statements, follow platform updates and community feedback, and always have a backup provider. Ensure your setup uses standard OpenAI-compatible APIs for easy migration. Ultimately, relay stations are tools, not default solutions. Their value lies in solving access needs at a controlled cost, but maintaining that control requires proactive risk management through verification, isolation, data classification, and continuous monitoring.

marsbit05/09 10:16

AI Relay Stations: The Hidden Pitfalls Behind Low Costs, How to Screen and Avoid Them?

marsbit05/09 10:16

$292 Million KelpDAO Cross-Chain Bridge Hack: Who Should Foot the Bill?

On April 18, 2026, an attacker stole 116,500 rsETH (worth ~$292M) from KelpDAO’s cross-chain bridge in 46 minutes—the largest DeFi exploit of 2026. The stolen assets were deposited into Aave V3 as collateral, causing $177–200M in bad debt and triggering a cascade of losses across nine DeFi protocols. Aave’s TVL dropped by ~$6B overnight. This legal analysis argues that KelpDAO and LayerZero Labs share concurrent liability, with fault apportioned 60%/40%. KelpDAO negligently configured its bridge with a 1-of-1 decentralized verifier network (DVN)—a single point of failure—despite LayerZero’s explicit recommendation of a 2-of-3 setup. LayerZero, which operated the compromised DVN, failed to secure its RPC infrastructure against a known poisoning attack vector. Both protocols’ terms of service cap liability at $200 (KelpDAO) or $50 (LayerZero), but these limits are likely unenforceable due to unconscionability, gross negligence exceptions, and potential securities law invalidation (if rsETH is deemed a security under the Howey test). Aave’s governance also faces fiduciary duty claims for raising rsETH’s loan-to-value ratio to 93%—far above competitors’ 72–75%—without adequately assessing bridge risks, amplifying the systemic fallout. Practical recovery targets include LayerZero Labs (a registered Canadian entity), KelpDAO’s founders, auditors, and identifiable Aave governance delegates. The incident underscores escalating legal risks for DeFi protocols, infrastructure providers, and governance participants.

marsbit04/24 06:25

$292 Million KelpDAO Cross-Chain Bridge Hack: Who Should Foot the Bill?

marsbit04/24 06:25

活动图片