Loading market data...

200,000 XRP Drained in 97 Minutes as Bridge Logic Flaw Validates Fake Deposits

200,000 XRP Drained in 97 Minutes as Bridge Logic Flaw Validates Fake Deposits
tag. We need to preserve HTML structure, translate naturally, keep proper nouns, and use appropriate Greek terminology for crypto/tech terms. Let's translate step by step. First, the title: "200,000 XRP Drained in 97 Minutes as Bridge Logic Flaw Validates Fake Deposits" Translate to Greek: - "200,000 XRP" stays as is (numbers and XRP). - "Drained" -> "αποστραγγίστηκαν" or "εξαφανίστηκαν"? Better: "αποστραγγίστηκαν" (drained) or "αφαιρέθηκαν"? Actually, "drained" in context of funds means "αποστραγγίστηκαν" or "εξαντλήθηκαν". But more natural: "Αποστραγγίστηκαν 200,000 XRP σε 97 λεπτά" - "as Bridge Logic Flaw Validates Fake Deposits" -> "καθώς ένα ελάττωμα στη λογική της γέφυρας επικύρωσε πλαστές καταθέσεις" But we need a proper title. Let's structure: "200,000 XRP αποστραγγίστηκαν σε 97 λεπτά καθώς ελάττωμα στη λογική της γέφυρας επικύρωσε πλαστές καταθέσεις" But we should keep it concise. Also, "Bridge" might be "γέφυρα" (bridge in crypto context). "Logic flaw" -> "ελάττωμα λογικής" or "σφάλμα λογικής". "Fake deposits" -> "πλαστές καταθέσεις" or "ψεύτικες καταθέσεις". I'll use "πλαστές". So title: "200,000 XRP αποστραγγίστηκαν σε 97 λεπτά καθώς ελάττωμα λογικής της γέφυρας επικύρωσε πλαστές καταθέσεις" But maybe more natural: "Αποστράγγιση 200,000 XRP σε 97 λεπτά: Ελάττωμα λογικής της γέφυρας επικύρωσε πλαστές καταθέσεις" That's a bit different. The original title is a sentence. We'll keep the sentence structure. Let's do: "200,000 XRP αποστραγγίστηκαν σε 97 λεπτά καθώς ελάττωμα στη λογική της γέφυρας επικύρωσε πλαστές καταθέσεις" Now the content: We have an
with paragraphs and h2. We'll translate each part. Original content:

Roughly 200,000 XRP disappeared from a cross-chain bridge in just 97 minutes, and on-chain data points to a fatal logic flaw in the bridge's validation code — not the XRP Ledger itself. The bridge, identified only as the TX bridge, authorized its own drain after accepting fake deposit proofs as genuine.

What the on-chain data shows

Investigators traced the loss to a single vulnerability in the TX bridge's deposit validation logic. The flaw allowed the bridge to treat fabricated deposit records as legitimate, then release funds from its own reserves. The XRP Ledger's core consensus and transaction processing were not involved in the error, according to the data.

The entire drain took under two hours. That speed suggests the attacker had already mapped the bridge's internal checks and knew exactly which fake deposit would pass.

Why the ledger isn't at fault

On-chain analysis clears the XRP Ledger of any direct responsibility. The ledger processed the outgoing transactions normally — the problem was upstream, in the bridge's software layer that decides what counts as a valid deposit. This distinction matters for users who might worry about the base network's security.

The bridge's logic flaw forced it to validate fake deposits, meaning the bridge itself became the attacker's tool. No external exploit of the ledger's protocol was used.

So far, no official statement from the TX bridge team has been released. The immediate question is whether the bridge will pause operations, refund affected users, or attempt to recover the funds. Given the 97-minute window, the attacker likely moved the XRP to multiple addresses quickly, which could complicate recovery.

For now, users holding XRP in similar bridges are left waiting for the TX bridge to disclose its next steps. The incident also raises a broader concern: if a single logic flaw can drain a bridge in under two hours, other bridges running similar code may need to audit their validation routines before they become the next target.