96 pointsby felipelalli6 hours ago15 comments
  • cypherpunks015 hours ago
    Seems that an Elements rangeproof cache bug may've gotten exploited. Fix for suspicious issue was committed just last week and attackers could've monitored the public commits and exploited the bug before fix was ever pushed?

    Sort of self-fulfilling prophecy if true, that's a leading theory anyhow.

    fix: range proof cache bind to asset and scriptpubkey

    https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements/commit/c26d719c2...

    • solenoid09374 hours ago
      lmao, PR description says:

      > Fixes a number of small issues picked up during LLM scans

  • rgbrgban hour ago
    There’s kind of an interesting thread here about open source, which is usually thought of as more secure because of more eyes on the code, actually being less secure because an accidental merge can be exploited instantly with LLM’s monitoring. Is there a lot more security value in obscurity than before?
    • teravoran hour ago
      false security. if there aren't LLM's monitoring patches with disassembler MCPs ready, there will be soon.
  • Daviey6 hours ago
  • nullcan hour ago
    I worked at blockstream back in 2017 and developed the original cryptographic range proofs which are the ancestors some of the involved code here. However, the vulnerabilities here and the whole liquid product as it exists today postdates my involvement in the company (while I was there it was under initial development but envisioned quite differently than what they eventually did), and I haven't followed any of it closely since.

    But I gave this issue a quick look based on the transactions and github history.

    Underlying issue was related to validation caching. Signatures and proofs are expensive to validate, to improve performance and prevent certain DOS attacks their validation is cached. It's important that the key used in the cache capture everything that goes into the validation decision (though to prevent some attacks its important not too much goes into the key, or an attacker can flood with valid proof attacked to insignificantly different transactions).

    It appears to me that there was a longstanding vulnerability-- stemming back to the introduction of multiple-asset-support-- which could cause a consensus split/ddos. But on a lazy review I can't come up with any way of translating it into theft. I see how someone could make an invalid transaction that would be falsely accepted by nodes that have cache state from a constructed prior transaction, but the ways I can come up with results in the invalid transaction just burning assets--- not directly very useful. [Big asterisks on the non obviously exploitable here, I've only thought about it for a minute or two and I really know fairly little about assets support in Liquid-- but exploiting it would require being able to create a fake 'shadow' asset with the a generator that is the negation of a real asset.]

    In any case: This was recently fixed, but the "fix" introduced a hash collision vulnerability: The new fields added to the hash were not delimited. Failing to include type information like lengths in hashes is a perennial problem in cryptographic protocols.

    Imagine you have a protocol where you sign a {comment, command} tuple, each a string. If the protocol computes the hash by just concating the command and comment and they're variable length fields, then you could get a signature of {"boring comment containing dangerous command", "boring command"} but then present it to someone as {"boring comment containing ","dangerous command boring command"} and have the signature pass. That sort of thing.

    This new vulnerability has a somewhat straight forward path to exploitation and prints funds out of thin air.

    Based on some of the public comments about nodes rejecting the attack transaction, I'm guessing they rolled out the "fix" to the federation in advance of publishing the changes because they seem to have accepted an attack that everyone else was still rejecting.

    Advanced private deployment of a 'fix' might have gave them the confidence to drop the fix on github with little fanfare as it was "already fixed", but doing so painted a target on the issue that remained. Interestingly, off the shelf open weight AI like Kimi K3 immediately identify the new vulnerability without any particularly artful prompting. Makes me wonder if "safe" AI played a role in the introduction of the new, more serious, vulnerability.

    Interestingly, it looks like the funds are being returned: https://mempool.space/tx/3a3eac4a26395b8c2563aaf1eb8b1b77798...

    I'm going to guess that anyone who actually knows more has their hands busy dealing with the return of the funds. I'm not sure if anyone has ever taken and then returned 1/3rd of a billion dollars worth of assets before.

    • nullcan hour ago
      I'm told by someone who threw AI at it that there may be a way to exploit the initial longstanding vulnerability by counting on the fact that updates to validation cache are non-atomic: You can make an invalid transaction that primes the cache before its rejected. But that these priming transactions can't propagate in the network (because they're invalid)... so getting them to the parties that need to sign the blocks might have been impractical to exploit.
  • skinfaxi6 hours ago
    Why do they say it's white hat hackers?
    • greyface-4 hours ago
      While moving the funds, the attackers left an OP_RETURN message with the text "we are whitehats. contact us on chain" https://mempool.space/tx/c103de95817b43f2df635ec6f35ff126ca2...
    • tom_6 hours ago
      Purported white-hat hackers. The implication is that these people are presumably describing themselves as such, but it may not actually be true.
      • kennywinker3 hours ago
        I can imagine one’s hat changing color when faced with a pot that big…
        • cyanydeez3 hours ago
          Maybe they are against epstein and genocide. You should look up how much epstein worked to fund bitcoin.
    • faitswulff5 hours ago
      The same reason scam artists describe themselves as businessmen
    • simonw6 hours ago
      Presumably to try and reduce the chance of a mass panic among their users.
      • jeremyjh4 hours ago
        9 times out of 10 when an exchange or broker is "hacked" its been the operators of the exchange.
        • thephyber4 hours ago
          You have worded this like a fact, but this is your opinion.
      • mvdtnz6 hours ago
        What do they care if there's a panic? They have "paused the sidechain". No one can act on their panic.
        • cool_dude855 hours ago
          Wasn't this all supposed to be decentralized? How can a foundation choose to unilaterally "pause the sidechain"?
          • Kranar5 hours ago
            BTC Liquid Network is not decentralized and does not purport to be. It's a federated sidechain, that is... it's a blockchain that runs alongside the Bitcoin blockchain (using a two-way peg that lock real BTC on the Bitcoin blockchain and issues an equivalent amount of Liquid BTC on the Liquid sidechain) but blocks can only be added to the Liquid Network sidechain by some of the handpicked members of the federation.
            • esseph3 hours ago
              What the fuck did you just say to me? (/s)
          • thephyber4 hours ago
            You are conflating the original BTC network and a lot of the other projects in the cryptocurrency / token / stable currency space.

            Every time there was a new token that was 80% reminded or was governed by a central company, the original cryptocurrency enthusiasts cried fowl.

            Most people don't read the fine print, don't read the founding white papers, and don't care about the differences between the protocols and the networks when they should.

            • vkou2 hours ago
              I think it's more that the 'original cryptocurrency enthusiasts' tend to look the other way, because the more of these weird shitcoins/nfts/networks get minted, the more their numbers go up.

              It's 2026. Show of hands, who here actually uses any of this, and why?

  • aizk2 hours ago
    I wonder how they'd ever cash out.
  • TZubiri4 hours ago
    One disadvantage of decentralized money, criminals gain more power. Many such cases
    • lmz4 hours ago
      There are always complaints on here about how Google is only paying $X for vulns. One advantage of decentralized digital money is that its bug bounties are self funding and the payout amount researcher-controlled.
    • peab3 hours ago
      I'm not sure if there is actually any evidence of this? Criminals do very well without crypto. If you look at percent of the economy that is fraudulent, it is quite large. If you look at percentage of crypto economy that is fraudulent, it is surprisingly similar
    • dotancohen4 hours ago
      That is a natural consequence of banks and governments losing power. That power balance shifts towards the citizens... some of whom are criminals.

      The coin fanboys will argue that the bankers and government were criminals as well.

      • thephyber4 hours ago
        This is worded in a way that pretends like the banks and governments themselves aren't considered criminals by the masses.
    • groundzeros20152 hours ago
      This is a centralization failure. Please learn more before commenting.
  • georgemcbay4 hours ago
    $320m, not a bad haul.

    More than enough to buy yourself a pardon if you get caught.

    • thephyber4 hours ago
      And remember that there is precedence for Trump pardoned financial criminals avoiding restitution.
  • xyst5 hours ago
    It’s not "hackers". It’s an inside job, and a rug pull.
    • Incipient5 hours ago
      That's always a possibility, and I'm sure it has happened a lot. I would suspect with the size of liquid it's more likely it was an exploit, but either way I don't think we'll ever know!
      • jeremyjh4 hours ago
        Usually we do find out, and in a majority of cases we find out it is a scam by the operators.
    • fxwin5 hours ago
      how is it a rug pull? if it's an inside job, doesn't that just make it theft?
      • knorker5 hours ago
        What's the difference to you between a rug pull and theft?
        • antonvs4 hours ago
          A rug pull involves convincing someone to buy something first.

          Theft doesn’t have to involve any convincing.

          This is a pretty basic distinction. Perhaps you were thinking of “fraud”?

        • bagels5 hours ago
          A few extra steps. Usually, the rug pull doesn't involve directly taking something that belongs to other people, but instead, selling your own thing in a dishonest way.
        • s1artibartfast4 hours ago
          A rug pull means you hype and then sell on the open market without.
        • brador3 hours ago
          Rug pull is a trap, which can include theft. (You pull the rug and the victim in the cartoon would fall into the spikes hole).
    • 4 hours ago
      undefined
    • atian3 hours ago
      Yeah it was.
    • mvdtnz5 hours ago
      I mean of course it was. Everything in this whole ludicrous space is a scam of one kind or another. It's amazing to me that this is still even a point of discussion. It's obviously a rug pull.
  • atian3 hours ago
    “Inside job.”
  • iwontberude6 hours ago
    [dead]
  • walrus016 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • galkk5 hours ago
    Time for bitcoin classic++?
    • gruez4 hours ago
      Are you thinking of ETH? All the bitcoin classic forks are over various aspect of network rules (eg. block size or block reward), not to roll back a transaction like ETH classic.
      • galkk2 hours ago
        You’re right, I misremembered. Yeah, I was speaking about ETH Classic thing. Thanks for pointing that out.
    • medellin4 hours ago
      Yeah… because in 15 years bitcoin has never forked for a hack. What a brain dead comment
  • etothepii4 hours ago
    Is there any indications that this and the ColdCard heist could in fact be escaped distilled agents from the huggingface and similar attacks?
    • the_real_cher3 hours ago
      Now they have 300 million dollars
      • kennywinker3 hours ago
        That should keep openai liquid for an extra 45min or so.
  • 4 hours ago
    undefined