FORESHOCK

Protocols

Request coverage

Every protocol here carries a dated score and the share of it backed by independently verified evidence. Where that share is still thin the assessment says so, is marked Low-signal rather than given a risk band, and holds every unevidenced category at the neutral midpoint instead of assuming it safe. Every score and its reasoning are free to read; the underlying dependency, incident and audit records are part of a plan. Each reading here is fixed at the date beside it. Re-scoring never stops, but a changed reading reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page, which is what a plan is for. How a score is built, how to read one, and how the rubric was tested against real exploits are all in the methodology.

Coverage grows three ways: protocols Foreshock selects at its own discretion, protocols requested through the Request coverage button, and sponsored assessments delivered on an agreed timeline. No path has a guaranteed date except sponsorship.

Scores run from 0, the safest reading, to 100, the riskiest, where 50 is the neutral midpoint every unverified category is held at. Red marks a protocol scoring 50 or above, the band called Elevated: worse than neutral on the evidence gathered. Amber marks one below it, called Moderate. The boundary is fixed. It does not move as coverage grows, and it is not fitted to any backtest result.

CCIP

CCIP official site N/A

Multi-Chain

:

  • Evidence: this reading is based on 100% of the scored weight, verified against named sources. Categories without verified data are held at the neutral midpoint at their full weight, never counted as safe.
  • Validation: the rubric is backtested against past exploits of protocols in the same TVL, age and category bucket. None has been evaluated for this one yet, so the reading rests on its evidence alone.

Published 2026-09-06. Up-to-date reading and 2 changes since for subscribers. See plans

Why this rating
Dependency risk10.5
Uses 4 oracles (CCIP is itself the bridge, and what secures it is a Chainlink oracle network that agrees off-chain on which messages were sent and posts that summary on-chain before anything can be executed.).
Audit profile10.0
2 audits/contests on record, most recent (Cyfrin CodeHawks, 2024-07-17) has unread findings, scored as unknown, not assumed clean.
Governance attack surface5.0
Governance concentration/quorum data unknown.
Code characteristics4.5
Admin key: timelock, open source.
TVL profile3.5
TVL change (-2%) is within a stable range.
Protocol age2.8
96 days live, still young.
Historical incidents2.3
No known own or inherited incidents as of 6 September 2026.
Team factors1.7
Doxxed team, track record: unknown.
Bug bounty0.7
Has a bug bounty program, up to $3 000 000, hosted on Immunefi.
Assets held (3)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Dependencies (1)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Incident history (0)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Audit history (3)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Common questions about CCIP

Foreshock's independent reading of CCIP is Moderate risk, 41.0 out of 100, as of 6 September 2026. The largest single contributor to that reading is dependency risk: uses 4 oracles (CCIP is itself the bridge, and what secures it is a Chainlink oracle network that agrees off-chain on which messages were sent and posts that summary on-chain before anything can be executed.). All nine scored categories are backed by verified evidence. This published reading is fixed at that date. Re-scoring never stops, and when a reading changes it reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page. Foreshock publishes the reading and the reasoning behind it. It is not a verdict on whether to use this protocol, and it is not investment advice.

Is CCIP safe?
Foreshock does not answer that as a yes or a no. Its independent reading of CCIP is Moderate risk, 41.0 out of 100, as of 6 September 2026, led by dependency risk: uses 4 oracles (CCIP is itself the bridge, and what secures it is a Chainlink oracle network that agrees off-chain on which messages were sent and posts that summary on-chain before anything can be executed.). The score and the reasoning are published in full so the reading can be checked rather than trusted.
Has CCIP been audited?
2 audits/contests on record, most recent (Cyfrin CodeHawks, 2024-07-17) has unread findings, scored as unknown, not assumed clean. An audit describes the code at the time it was reviewed. It is not a statement that the protocol is safe today.
Who controls CCIP?
Admin key: timelock, open source. Governance concentration/quorum data unknown.
Has CCIP been exploited before?
No known own or inherited incidents as of 6 September 2026. Foreshock records an incident against a protocol whether it originated there or was inherited from something it depends on.
When was this CCIP assessment last updated?
6 September 2026, and that date does not move on its own. A reading published here is fixed when it is published; re-scoring never stops, and a changed reading reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page. Every category carries the date of the evidence behind it.
Also covered on Multi-Chain

This assessment follows Foreshock's published methodology. Exact category weights, scoring rules, thresholds, and aggregation logic are proprietary and not shown here. How to interpret this assessment

This reading will change.

This reading is fixed at the date above it, and it stays there. We keep re-scoring CCIP as the evidence moves, a new audit, a changed admin control, an incident, and this page is free to read and always will be. The updated reading is what a plan buys: you are told by email on the day it changes, instead of finding out the next time you happen to look.

Pick one protocol and get a free weekly summary of what changed. Same-day alerts come with a plan.

Monitor this protocolGet told when this changesBrowse every protocol