FORESHOCK

Contact

Feedback
Tell us what's wrong, missing, or worth knowing.
Request coverage
Tell us which protocol to score next. Requests decide where coverage deepens.

How should this request move forward?

Request an investigation
A verified, independent report on a specific exploit: coverage determination, verified loss amount, and a technical attack breakdown.

Investigations run today on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Binance, Polygon, Optimism, Avalanche, zkSync, Blast, Linea, Gnosis, Sonic, Hyperliquid, Scroll, Mantle, Celo, Metis, opBNB, Mode, Berachain, Ronin, Unichain, Ink, Soneium, Zora, Abstract, Aurora, Hyperliquid L1, zkSync Era, World Chain, Gnosis Chain, Shape, ApeChain, Rootstock, Lens, Plasma. Anything else — Solana, Sui, and the rest — is a limit of this forensics pipeline specifically, not of the risk-scoring engine, which covers considerably more. Pick “another chain” and tell us anyway: that is how the next one gets chosen.

Five questions. Two of them we cannot answer from the chain at any price, and the rest change what the work involves. Answering them now is free and stops a case being quoted that cannot conclude. “Not sure” is a real answer — it is common, and it is better than a guess.

Did the assets leave addresses you control?

Only you know which addresses are yours. A balance that fell because value moved to another wallet you hold is not a loss at all, and no amount of chain analysis can tell the difference from the outside.

Was the movement unauthorised by you?

This is the line between theft and a transaction later regretted. On-chain, a signature your own key produced looks authorised whoever obtained the key, so this turns on how the key was obtained rather than on what the transaction looks like.

Did the assets end up with someone you do not control?

Where the value went separates theft from an internal mistake. A freshly created address nobody can identify points one way; a known counterparty or an exchange deposit needs an explanation before it is called theft.