points by Quinner 3 days ago | 0 comments
They had controls in place to prevent large transfers, so the attackers structured it as a lot of small transfers very quickly
[–] yobananaboy 3 days ago
Not just that! The EIP-7702 delegation to make the wallet into a smart contract bypassed all of the controls that they had in place on the signer. It's wild that they didn't have a system in place to stop it from signing that transaction type.
[–] tennysont 3 days ago
From my rough understanding, this seems like the main exploit. It seems like the machine with access to the wallet key was presented with a crazy EIP-7702 transaction and signed it (which effectively owned its wallet in a single transaction)[1]. Without knowing their security model, it seems like biggest trust boundary should be between that signing machine and everything else.
[1] The fact that the needed to sign 50 of these transactions to solve a race condition seems like an implementation detail
[–] yobananaboy 1 day ago
They had to sign 50 of them because they had to compete timing the transaction with the normal transactions. Transactions have to be in nonce order for the wallet, and if two transactions with the same nonce are submitted to a block, it is up to the miner / validator to determine which one to put in. So if you spray 50, you can almost guarantee that the transaction you want will get in.
[–] stogot 3 days ago
Is quorum signing not a thing in crypto?
[–] cowlevel 3 days ago
In Ethereum it would be implemented by linking your account to smart contract code, then throwing away your private key so you can only make transactions through the smart contract. The approval of linking to smart contract code is exactly what they signed here - only it wasn't a multisig smart contract, it was something malicious.
[–] tennysont 3 days ago
It is---though I don't see the connection
[–] PeeMcGee 3 days ago
A disgruntled employee wouldn't do the exact same thing?
[–] neutronicus 3 days ago
That's the plot of Office Space!
[–] wahern 3 days ago
Also Superman III, which predates it and presumably was well known to the writers. But I have an inkling the scheme and it's infamy go back much further. (Precious metal coin clipping/debasement?) It's one of those ethical questions, like a pauper stealing bread, or thought experiments, like "what if reality is just a dream" that many if not most people encounter during their formative years. Per usual, though, the chasm between theory and application (even just identifying real world potential when it matters) is the toughest one to cross.
[–] vondur 3 days ago
They also mention that in the movie.
[–] wolfi1 3 days ago
there's even a Peter Ustinov film from the 60s
[–] theoreticalmal 3 days ago
Where’s Milton when you need him??
[–] burningChrome 3 days ago
If they did and didn't account for a simple scenario like this happening and built in roadblocks and friction to prevent it from happening? Then it would stand to reason their entire EIS team should be fired.
The fact nobody thought of this is pretty staggering.
[–] littlecranky67 3 days ago
It is hard to imagine they lost 6.3$bn and are not firing people...
[–] Betelbuddy 3 days ago
They just spent 6.3$bn to train them....
[–] stinkbeetle 3 days ago
> They had controls in place to prevent large transfers, so the attackers structured it as a lot of small transfers very quickly
lol that's the worst control I've ever heard.
[–] SpaceNoodled 3 days ago
OK, so nobody else has seen Superman III?
[–] RHSeeger 3 days ago
It is such a weird combination of "I enjoyed this movie" and "this really isn't a good superman movie"
[–] wolfi1 3 days ago
at that time I was not old enough to see it
[–] Animats 3 days ago
Nope.
[–] ForHackernews 3 days ago
Be your own IRM 4.26.13!
[–] long-time-first 3 days ago
I think they did that in Superman 3
[–] jMyles 3 days ago
This isn't a mundane detail, Michael!
[–] theatomheart 2 days ago
best part of this thread so far
[–] melenaboija 3 days ago
[–] theoreticalmal 3 days ago
[–] IAmBroom 3 days ago