Two random facts about the hack of @BalancerLabs pools:
- the hacker made five 0.1 ETH withdrawals from Tornado, in the first of them relayer was used and the rest using his own address. Consequently, the hacker had experience with Tornado and he made at least 5 deposits there.
- the hacker made five 0.1 ETH withdrawals from Tornado, in the first of them relayer was used and the rest using his own address. Consequently, the hacker had experience with Tornado and he made at least 5 deposits there.
Currently, there are 1312 unique addresses that deposited 0.1 ETH into Tornado. Of these, 112 made at least 5 deposits. In addition, the number of addresses can be reduced by using heuristics from this paper: arxiv.org/pdf/2005.14051…
It will be cool if someone takes a look at it.
It will be cool if someone takes a look at it.
- the contract that withdrew the money from the STA pool couldn't withdraw it from the STONK pool due to an "Out of gas" error. However, after 40 minutes, the hacker rewrote the code and drained funds from the second pool using a new contract.
It is still very surprising to me that attackers rarely use SELFDESTRUCT after their hacks. This would make it impossible to quickly analyze contracts using only explorers like Tenderly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
