Daily Mail PH

Thursday, November 23, 2023

[New post] KyberSwap attacker used ‘infinite money glitch’ to drain funds — DeFi expert

Site logo image Crypto Breaking News posted: "The attacker who drained $46 million from KyberSwap relied on a "complex and carefully engineered smart contract exploit" to carry out the attack, according to a social media thread by Ambient exchange founder Doug Colkitt. Colkitt labeled the exploi" Crypto Breaking News

KyberSwap attacker used 'infinite money glitch' to drain funds — DeFi expert

Crypto Breaking News

Nov 23

The attacker who drained $46 million from KyberSwap relied on a "complex and carefully engineered smart contract exploit" to carry out the attack, according to a social media thread by Ambient exchange founder Doug Colkitt. 

Colkitt labeled the exploit an "infinite money glitch." According to him, the attacker took advantage of a unique implementation of KyberSwap's concentrated liquidity feature to "trick" the contract into believing it had more liquidity than it did in reality.

1/ Finished a preliminary deep dive into the Kyber exploit, and think I now have a pretty good understanding of what happened.

This is easily the most complex and carefully engineered smart contract exploit I've ever seen...

— Doug Colkitt (@0xdoug) November 23, 2023

Most decentralized exchanges (DEXs) provide a "concentrated liquidity" feature, which allows liquidity providers to set minimum and maximum prices at which they would offer to buy or sell crypto. According to Colkitt, this feature was used by the KyberSwap attacker to drain funds. However, the exploit "is specific to Kyber's implementation of concentrated liquidity and probably will not work on other DEXs," he said.

The KyberSwap attack consisted of several exploits against individual pools, with each attack being nearly identical to every other, Colkitt said. To illustrate how it worked, Colkitt considered the exploit of the ETH/wstETH pool on Ethereum. This pool contained Ether (ETH) and Lido Wrapped Staked Ether (wstETH).

The attacker began by borrowing 10,000 wstETH (worth $23 million at the time) from flash loan platform Aave, as shown in blockchain data. According to Colkitt, the attacker then dumped $6.7 million worth of these tokens into the pool, causing its price to collapse to 0.0000152 ETH per 1 wstETH. At this price point, there were no liquidity providers willing to buy or sell, so liquidity should have been zero.

The attacker then deposited 3.4 wstETH and offered to buy or sell between the prices of 0.0000146 and 0.0000153, withdrawing 0.56 wstETH immediately after the deposit. Colkitt speculated that the attacker may have withdrawn the 0.56 wstETH to "make the subsequent numerical calculations line up perfectly."

After making this deposit and withdrawal, the attacker performed a second and third swap. The second swap pushed the price to 0.0157 ETH, which should have deactivated the attacker's liquidity. The third swap pushed the price back up to 0.00001637. This, too, was outside of the price range set by the attacker's own liquidity threshold, as it was now above their maximum price.

Theoretically, the last two swaps should have accomplished nothing, as the attacker was buying and selling into their own liquidity, since every other user had a minimum price set far below these values. "In the absence of a numerical bug, someone doing this would just be trading back and forth with their own liquidity," Colkitt stated, adding, "and all the flows would net out to zero (minus fees)."

However, due to a peculiarity of the arithmetic used to calculate the upper and lower bound of price ranges, the protocol failed to remove liquidity in one of the first two swaps but also added it back during the final swap. As a result, the pool ended up "double counting the liquidity from the original LP position," which allowed the attacker to receive 3,911 wstETH for a minimal amount of ETH. Although the attacker had to dump 1,052 wstETH in the first swap to carry out the attack, it still enabled them to profit by 2,859 wstETH ($6.7 million at today's price) after paying back their flash loan.

The attacker apparently repeated this exploit against other KyberSwap pools on multiple networks, eventually getting away with a total of $46 million in crypto loot.

Related: HTX exchange loses $13.6M in hot wallet hack: Report

According to Colkitt, KyberSwap contained a failsafe mechanism within the computeSwapStep function that was intended to prevent this exploit from being possible. However, the attacker managed to keep the numerical values used in the swap just outside of the range that would cause the failsafe to trigger. As Colkitt stated:

"The 'reach quantity' was the upper bound for reaching the tick boundary was calculated as ...22080000, whereas the exploiter set a swap quantity of ...220799999. That shows just how carefully engineered this exploit was. The check failed by <0.00000000001%."

Colkitt called the attack "easily the most complex and carefully engineered smart contract exploit I've ever seen."

As Cointelegraph reported, KyberSwap was exploited for $46 million on Nov. 22. The team discovered a vulnerability on April 17, but no funds were lost in that incident. The exchange's user interface was also hacked in September 2022, although all users were compensated in that incident. The Nov. 22 attacker has informed the team they are willing to negotiate to return some of the funds. 

Source: Cointelegraph.com


Manage your email settings or unsubscribe.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
https://www.cryptobreaking.com/kyberswap-attacker-used-infinite-money-glitch-to-drain-funds-defi-expert/

WordPress.com and Jetpack Logos

Get the Jetpack app to use Reader anywhere, anytime

Follow your favorite sites, save posts to read later, and get real-time notifications for likes and comments.

Download Jetpack on Google Play Download Jetpack from the App Store
WordPress.com on Twitter WordPress.com on Facebook WordPress.com on Instagram WordPress.com on YouTube
WordPress.com Logo and Wordmark title=

Automattic, Inc. - 60 29th St. #343, San Francisco, CA 94110  

at November 23, 2023
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

CG BOSS Posts from Gargoyles Reboot thanks to creator kept it alive | CG BOSS Games for 04/26/2026

CG BOSS Blog Post Updates ...

  • How can the Rappler app be better? We'd like to know what you think!
    Hi daily! Have you downloaded the Rappler app? We'd love to hear about ...
  • [New post] Tuesday’s politics thread is trying to stay positive.
    SheleetaHam posted: " Even though I just finished the latest Opening Arguments podcast about how Roe v. Wade is toast, and ...
  • [New post] Achieve Data Sovereignty through Omnisphere
    Crypto Breaking News posted: "Web 3.0 is one of the biggest buzzwords flying around the world of social media this year. An...

Search This Blog

  • Home

About Me

Daily Newsletters PH
View my complete profile

Report Abuse

Labels

  • Last Minute Online News

Blog Archive

  • April 2026 (1)
  • February 2026 (1)
  • January 2026 (7)
  • December 2025 (8)
  • November 2025 (4)
  • October 2025 (2)
  • September 2025 (1)
  • August 2025 (2)
  • July 2025 (5)
  • June 2025 (3)
  • May 2025 (2)
  • April 2025 (2)
  • February 2025 (2)
  • December 2024 (1)
  • October 2024 (2)
  • September 2024 (1459)
  • August 2024 (1360)
  • July 2024 (1614)
  • June 2024 (1394)
  • May 2024 (1376)
  • April 2024 (1440)
  • March 2024 (1688)
  • February 2024 (2833)
  • January 2024 (3130)
  • December 2023 (3057)
  • November 2023 (2826)
  • October 2023 (2228)
  • September 2023 (2118)
  • August 2023 (2611)
  • July 2023 (2736)
  • June 2023 (2844)
  • May 2023 (2749)
  • April 2023 (2407)
  • March 2023 (2810)
  • February 2023 (2508)
  • January 2023 (3052)
  • December 2022 (2844)
  • November 2022 (2673)
  • October 2022 (2196)
  • September 2022 (1973)
  • August 2022 (2306)
  • July 2022 (2294)
  • June 2022 (2363)
  • May 2022 (2299)
  • April 2022 (2233)
  • March 2022 (1993)
  • February 2022 (1358)
  • January 2022 (1323)
  • December 2021 (2064)
  • November 2021 (3141)
  • October 2021 (3240)
  • September 2021 (3135)
  • August 2021 (1782)
  • May 2021 (136)
  • April 2021 (294)
Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.