Blockchain + Libre
librehash.org
twitter.com/librehash
@librecharts
@librechain
@libredarkweb
@librecryptography
@libresec
@librehashdiscussion
No Affiliations
Post #30432
610
Channel Public Channel
LI Libre Blockchain
@librehash
- Subscribers
- 2.49K
- Photos
- 7.3K
- Videos
- 37
- Links
- 6.9K
Showing posts older than #30434 · Back to latest
Older Posts 19 shown
Post #30431
804
Vulnerability in Safe Contracts (All Versions Affected) Part One
> Hold on tight for this one, it's going to be a long night because I'm going to walk down this entire situation in here and elsewhere (Twitter, GitHub, Substack, Medium etc.)
Going to break this down succinctly in the next few posts since the Safe team didn't want to acknowledge this in a timely manner. Not sure whether they triaged this or not, but I'll get straight to the point here.
This attack vector was more than likely exploited in both the Bybit & WazirX hacks. If you remember, the WazirX hack occurred back in July 2024.
In both cases:
1. Gnosis Safe contracts were used. In WazirX the 1.3.0 version of the logic contract was used. In the case of Bybit, the 1.1.1 version of the Safe contracts were used.
2. Both Safe deployments were multi-signature. WazirX's multi-sig deployment was much more sophisticated than the setup we saw for Bybit. Wazir had 3 signers on the exchange's end that signed off on a transaction, then they sent their transaction over to Liminal (3rd party provider) to sign off on a given transaction as a final confirmation. Also Wazir was using a more recent version of the Safe contracts. All signers were using separate devices to sign transactions and they were all physically separate from one another and none of their devices were compromised. There also was no narrative about Safe's UI being compromised. Liminal was accused of having their UI compromised, but they vehemently denied this claim.
The narrative has been that some sort of sophisticated UI swap took place. That's cap. Let me go ahead and publish what I have debunking that first.
> Hold on tight for this one, it's going to be a long night because I'm going to walk down this entire situation in here and elsewhere (Twitter, GitHub, Substack, Medium etc.)
Going to break this down succinctly in the next few posts since the Safe team didn't want to acknowledge this in a timely manner. Not sure whether they triaged this or not, but I'll get straight to the point here.
This attack vector was more than likely exploited in both the Bybit & WazirX hacks. If you remember, the WazirX hack occurred back in July 2024.
In both cases:
1. Gnosis Safe contracts were used. In WazirX the 1.3.0 version of the logic contract was used. In the case of Bybit, the 1.1.1 version of the Safe contracts were used.
2. Both Safe deployments were multi-signature. WazirX's multi-sig deployment was much more sophisticated than the setup we saw for Bybit. Wazir had 3 signers on the exchange's end that signed off on a transaction, then they sent their transaction over to Liminal (3rd party provider) to sign off on a given transaction as a final confirmation. Also Wazir was using a more recent version of the Safe contracts. All signers were using separate devices to sign transactions and they were all physically separate from one another and none of their devices were compromised. There also was no narrative about Safe's UI being compromised. Liminal was accused of having their UI compromised, but they vehemently denied this claim.
The narrative has been that some sort of sophisticated UI swap took place. That's cap. Let me go ahead and publish what I have debunking that first.
- 🔥 2
- 🤡 1
Post #30430
616
Libre Blockchain Critical Vulnerability in Gnosis Safes Been back and forth with their lead engineer about it. Sitting on a 70 page post-mortem. I’m giving the team another 24 hours or so to confirm whether or not this is being triaged before I just publish it publicly.…
We’ve had a dozen or so email back & forths about it. Truly is my hope that they triage the issue & address it accordingly in keeping with their namesake, “Safe”.
Post #30428
610
Critical Vulnerability in Gnosis Safes
Been back and forth with their lead engineer about it. Sitting on a 70 page post-mortem. I’m giving the team another 24 hours or so to confirm whether or not this is being triaged before I just publish it publicly.
I cannot speak on the nature of it right now or what contract versions are impacted, but this is something they need to triage and fix.
Been back and forth with their lead engineer about it. Sitting on a 70 page post-mortem. I’m giving the team another 24 hours or so to confirm whether or not this is being triaged before I just publish it publicly.
I cannot speak on the nature of it right now or what contract versions are impacted, but this is something they need to triage and fix.
- 👍 2
- 🫡 2
Post #30427
542
Post #30426
619
Forwarded from Watcher Guru
Post #30425
621
Forwarded from Watcher Guru
JUST IN: 🇺🇸🇨🇳 President Trump says tariffs on China will come down substantially and he won't play hardball.
@WatcherGuru
@WatcherGuru
Post #30424
599
Forwarded from Watcher Guru
JUST IN: 🇺🇸🇨🇳 White House says it's doing "very well" on a potential trade deal with China.
@WatcherGuru
@WatcherGuru
Post #30423
735
Post #30421
956
Time Weighted Average Price (TWAP)
Typically whenever a large firm, market maker or other similar entity has a large amount of an asset they’re selling off (for whatever reason), they’ll do it using a TWAP calculation.
This is basically an automated algorithmic trading strategy firms use to exit positions without creating too much price volatility (and thus, losing profits). Haven’t seen many (or any) entities in this space mention this before, so figured I’d drop it here so you all know.
In essence (not saying this applies here, but in general) whenever we see reports that a firm or entity is going to be liquidating a major position, they do it using the TWAP (or a similar strategy). They don’t just hit the “market sell” button and say fuck it lol. Not saying that never happens but … it’s always good to derive a rational basis behind an actor’s decision(s) in the market if we’re going to cultivate theories for XYZ.
This is just an FYI post.
Typically whenever a large firm, market maker or other similar entity has a large amount of an asset they’re selling off (for whatever reason), they’ll do it using a TWAP calculation.
This is basically an automated algorithmic trading strategy firms use to exit positions without creating too much price volatility (and thus, losing profits). Haven’t seen many (or any) entities in this space mention this before, so figured I’d drop it here so you all know.
In essence (not saying this applies here, but in general) whenever we see reports that a firm or entity is going to be liquidating a major position, they do it using the TWAP (or a similar strategy). They don’t just hit the “market sell” button and say fuck it lol. Not saying that never happens but … it’s always good to derive a rational basis behind an actor’s decision(s) in the market if we’re going to cultivate theories for XYZ.
This is just an FYI post.
- 👍 2
Post #30420
1.15K
So this is a GIF showing the price and 24H traded volume of Mantra.
I’m aware of the rumors the team dumped OTC but I’m skeptical about that being the cause of this for a few reasons:
1. The 24H traded volume was relatively consistent past the start of the dump (obviously once the coin falls off a cliff, natural market activity will pick up). Even now at this moment though, the 24H traded volume is still only 4X what it was before the start of the dump.
2. It’s hard to imagine the team could’ve been shopping around for a buyer of the project’s entire locked supply (damn near) without setting off some crazy alarm bells well in advance of the deal being executed.
3. Let’s assume an OTC deal were executed…the project had solid liquidity with solid trading volume on exchanges. Why dump it all the way down to $0? There are dozens of major projects (*cough* Ripple *cough*) that have been slow dumping on their holders for YEARS.
I’m aware of the rumors the team dumped OTC but I’m skeptical about that being the cause of this for a few reasons:
1. The 24H traded volume was relatively consistent past the start of the dump (obviously once the coin falls off a cliff, natural market activity will pick up). Even now at this moment though, the 24H traded volume is still only 4X what it was before the start of the dump.
2. It’s hard to imagine the team could’ve been shopping around for a buyer of the project’s entire locked supply (damn near) without setting off some crazy alarm bells well in advance of the deal being executed.
3. Let’s assume an OTC deal were executed…the project had solid liquidity with solid trading volume on exchanges. Why dump it all the way down to $0? There are dozens of major projects (*cough* Ripple *cough*) that have been slow dumping on their holders for YEARS.
- 👍 2
Post #30419
873
Libre Blockchain Only Person in Crypto to Decipher the Bybit Hack Hey @Vladimir_Cointelegraph & any other reporters for publications that are in here - go ahead and message me on the backend. I figured it out. Ignore EVERYTHING I said about it before. This took me 3 straight…
Mantra Mystery - Anyone Know What’s Going On?
This is a T100 project that just lost >$6B market cap in the last 60 minutes.
I’m out of the loop here…what happened? From a glance this project’s purpose is to support RWAs (real world assets). So that follows the concept of tokens / chain assets correlating with some real world security or tangible item of value.
Extrapolating here…one would imagine a project like this would only start crashing to 0 if some sort of information got leaked out indicating the tokenized assets issued by this chain were not in fact actually backed by RWAs.
Again, this is a theory. I don’t know yet. If you do though - comment please! (preferably with some sources or means of substantiating your response)
This is a T100 project that just lost >$6B market cap in the last 60 minutes.
I’m out of the loop here…what happened? From a glance this project’s purpose is to support RWAs (real world assets). So that follows the concept of tokens / chain assets correlating with some real world security or tangible item of value.
Extrapolating here…one would imagine a project like this would only start crashing to 0 if some sort of information got leaked out indicating the tokenized assets issued by this chain were not in fact actually backed by RWAs.
Again, this is a theory. I don’t know yet. If you do though - comment please! (preferably with some sources or means of substantiating your response)
Post #30418
924
Mantra down -90% in the past hour. This was (and even still is) a T100 market cap token
Post #30417
721
Forwarded from Watcher Guru
Post #30416
870
Dow Jones up 3k points on Trump Tariff Reversal News
Post #30415
1.67K
Only 4 out of all 8.7M Pump.fun Tokens Still Have >$100M Market Cap
Says a lot about the memecoin craze
https://cryptorank.io/news/feed/c88b8-4-out-of-8-7m-pump-fun-tokens-hold-100m
CryptoRank Only 4 out of all 8.7M pump.fun tokens still hold $100M+ market cap | Ripple Pump.fun | CryptoRank.io Only four tokens out of 8.7 million launched on pump.fun since January 14, 2024, are still holding a market cap over $100 million, according to the project’s Says a lot about the memecoin craze
https://cryptorank.io/news/feed/c88b8-4-out-of-8-7m-pump-fun-tokens-hold-100m
- 🤣 6
- 😁 1
- 💯 1
- 🙊 1
Post #30414
981
Ethena Facing Germany Regulatory Issues (Somewhat Major)
https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/bafin-freezes-ethena-gmbhs-asset-reserves-over-usde-token-deficiencies-under-mica/?tg=1742577664
Financial and Business News | Finance Magnates BaFin Freezes Ethena GmbH's Asset Reserves over USDe Token Deficiencies Under MiCA Germany's financial regulator, BaFin, has identified significant deficiencies in Ethena GmbH’s approval process for its USDe token. https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/bafin-freezes-ethena-gmbhs-asset-reserves-over-usde-token-deficiencies-under-mica/?tg=1742577664
Post #30412
1.1K
Only Person in Crypto to Decipher the Bybit Hack
Hey @Vladimir_Cointelegraph & any other reporters for publications that are in here - go ahead and message me on the backend. I figured it out. Ignore EVERYTHING I said about it before. This took me 3 straight weeks of trial and error. But I figured it out. And I have empirical proof. And it’s reproducible. And I have a POC for it (going to be uploaded w the repo) + a breakdown that shows exactly how this occurred step by step in the EVM.
Congratulations if you follow this channel. The smartest person in crypto is back. I said what I said and I stamp that because nobody else figured this out. So they’re either incapable of doing so or they were too lazy to do so (while going the extra step of shelling this out top to bottom to ensure it’s in the general public).
Quick Synopsis
Broke down how the Bybit hack actually happened. Gnosis & Bybit were dead wrong. $100k up if I’m wrong. I reproduced the hack through the EVM, Echidna & ityFuzz. Broke more than one function that governs validation checks. Compromise due to an overflow that corrupted memory in the EVM which allowed the attacker to control the free memory pointer at 0x40 and write to arbitrary slots. Signatures probably were valid but obviously shouldn’t have passed signature validation.
Hey @Vladimir_Cointelegraph & any other reporters for publications that are in here - go ahead and message me on the backend. I figured it out. Ignore EVERYTHING I said about it before. This took me 3 straight weeks of trial and error. But I figured it out. And I have empirical proof. And it’s reproducible. And I have a POC for it (going to be uploaded w the repo) + a breakdown that shows exactly how this occurred step by step in the EVM.
Congratulations if you follow this channel. The smartest person in crypto is back. I said what I said and I stamp that because nobody else figured this out. So they’re either incapable of doing so or they were too lazy to do so (while going the extra step of shelling this out top to bottom to ensure it’s in the general public).
Quick Synopsis
Broke down how the Bybit hack actually happened. Gnosis & Bybit were dead wrong. $100k up if I’m wrong. I reproduced the hack through the EVM, Echidna & ityFuzz. Broke more than one function that governs validation checks. Compromise due to an overflow that corrupted memory in the EVM which allowed the attacker to control the free memory pointer at 0x40 and write to arbitrary slots. Signatures probably were valid but obviously shouldn’t have passed signature validation.
- 🔥 1
Post #30411
1.02K
Covering the Fraudulent Non-Transparent Actions of Peter McCormack
Full thread here - https://x.com/librehash/status/1657956405947559936
In the process of slowly transitioning everything to BlueSky & Threads. We’re going to be everywhere. #ThisDoesNotStop
Full thread here - https://x.com/librehash/status/1657956405947559936
In the process of slowly transitioning everything to BlueSky & Threads. We’re going to be everywhere. #ThisDoesNotStop
- ❤🔥 1