Author | Wu Says Blockchain
On the evening of February 21, Beijing time, on-chain detective ZachXBT first disclosed that over $1.46 billion in suspicious funds had flowed out of Bybit, with mETH and stETH currently being exchanged for ETH on DEX. It can be confirmed that this has become the largest theft incident in cryptocurrency history (by the amount at the time).
Coinbase executive Conor Grogan stated that North Korea's hack on Bybit is the largest hacking theft case ever (surpassing the Iraq Central Bank theft, valued at about $1 billion), with an amount approximately 10 times that of the 2016 DAO hack (but the percentage of supply is much higher). It is expected that there will be calls for an Ethereum fork.
Arkham tweeted that on-chain analyst ZachXBT provided conclusive evidence that the $1.5 billion hack of Bybit was carried out by the North Korean-backed hacker organization Lazarus Group. His submission included detailed analyses of test transactions, associated wallets, forensic charts, and time analysis. Relevant information has been shared with Bybit to assist in their investigation.
Bybit CEO BEN tweeted that about an hour ago, Bybit's ETH multi-signature cold wallet had just transferred to our hot wallet. It appears that this transaction was forged, as all signers saw a forged UI showing the correct address, with the URL coming from SAFE. However, the signature information was meant to change the smart contract logic of our ETH cold wallet. This allowed the hacker to control our signed specific ETH cold wallet and transfer all ETH in the cold wallet to this unidentified address. Rest assured, all other cold wallets are safe. All withdrawals are normal. I will keep you updated on further developments, and if any team can help us track the stolen funds, we would be grateful. Bybit's hot wallet, warm wallet, and all other cold wallets are fine. The only cold wallet that was hacked is the ETH cold wallet. All withdrawals are normal.
Bybit's official Twitter stated that Bybit detected unauthorized activity involving one of our ETH cold wallets. At the time of the incident, our ETH multi-signature cold wallet was executing a transfer to our hot wallet. Unfortunately, this transaction was manipulated through a complex attack that obscured the signature interface, showing the correct address while altering the underlying smart contract logic. As a result, the attacker was able to control the affected ETH cold wallet and transfer its assets to an unidentified address. Our security team is actively investigating this incident with leading blockchain forensic experts and partners. Any team with expertise in blockchain analysis and fund recovery that can assist in tracking these assets is welcome to collaborate with us. We want to assure our users and partners that all other Bybit cold wallets are completely safe. All customer funds are secure, and our operations continue as usual without interruption. Transparency and security remain our top priorities, and we will provide updates as soon as possible.
Bybit stated that all other Bybit cold wallets are safe, and customer funds are unaffected and remain secure. We understand that the current situation has led to a surge in withdrawal requests. While such a high volume may cause delays, all withdrawals are being processed normally. Bybit has sufficient assets to cover the losses, with asset management exceeding $20 billion, and will use bridge loans if necessary to ensure the availability of user funds.
Coinbase executive Conor Grogan tweeted that Binance and Bitget have just deposited over 50,000 ETH directly into Bybit's cold wallet, with Bitget's deposit being particularly notable, accounting for a quarter of all ETH on that exchange. Since the deposit address was skipped, these funds were clearly coordinated by Bybit itself. Bybit CEO Ben Zhou stated: Thank you to Bitget for reaching out at this moment, and we are communicating with Binance and several other partners; this funding has nothing to do with Binance officially.
Bitget CEO Gracy stated that Bybit is a respected competitor and partner. Although the loss is significant, it is essentially their annual profit. I believe customer funds are 100% safe, and there is no need to panic or rush to withdraw. Additionally, Gracy stated that the funds lent to Bybit are Bitget's own assets, not user assets.
The SlowMist team published additional details, stating that the attacker deployed a malicious implementation contract, and then the attacker replaced the Safe implementation contract with the malicious contract by having three owners sign the transaction, using backdoor functions in the malicious contract to sweepETH and sweepERC20 to empty the hot wallet funds.
Dilation Effect analysis pointed out that compared to previous similar incidents, the Bybit incident only required taking down one signer to complete the attack, as the attacker used a "social engineering" technique. Analyzing on-chain transactions shows that the attacker executed a malicious contract's transfer function through delegatecall, with the transfer code modifying the value of slot 0 using the SSTORE instruction, thereby changing the implementation address of the Bybit cold wallet multi-signature contract to the attacker's address. It only required dealing with the person/device initiating this multi-signature transaction; the subsequent reviewers would significantly lower their guard when seeing this transfer. Because a normal person seeing a transfer would think it was just a transfer, who would know it was actually changing the contract?
Chainlink data shows that after the disclosure of the Bybit security incident, USDe briefly plummeted to $0.965 before recovering to $0.99. Bybit integrated USDe as collateral to trade perpetual contracts for all assets on the exchange UTA. Ethena_labs stated that they are monitoring the current situation at Bybit and will continue to track developments. All spot assets supporting USDe are stored in an off-exchange custody solution, including cooperation with Bybit through Copper Clearloop. Currently, no spot assets are stored on any exchange. The total unrealized PNL related to hedging positions with Bybit is less than $30 million, which is less than half of the reserve fund. USDe currently remains over-collateralized and will provide updates based on the latest information.
Binance co-founder CZ responded that this is not an easy situation to handle and may suggest pausing all withdrawals as a standard safety precaution, offering any assistance if needed. He Yi expressed willingness to help.
The Safe security team responded that they are working closely with Bybit to conduct an ongoing investigation. No evidence has yet been found that the official Safe front end has been compromised, but out of caution, certain functions of the Safe Wallet have been temporarily suspended. SlowMist's Yu Xian stated that similar to the previous Radiant Capital case, it may also have been a theft by North Korean hackers. Radiant Capital stated that an attack worth $50 million it encountered in October was related to North Korean hacker organizations, involving complex identity forgery and multi-layer phishing attacks. The attackers impersonated former contractors to obtain sensitive credentials through social engineering, thereby infiltrating the protocol system to carry out the attack.
Security analysts believe this is similar to WazirX and Radiant, where the signer's computer or intermediary interface was hacked. Possible reasons for this hacking attack include: hackers implanting viruses in the signer's computer/browser, replacing transactions with malicious transactions, and then sending them to hardware wallets. This virus could be located in any part of the stack (e.g., malicious extensions, wallet communication…) - the security interface was hacked, showing one transaction but sending another to the wallet. The end result is that the signer saw an innocent transaction in the security interface, but in reality, a malicious transaction was sent to their wallet. We cannot determine the exact cause until a complete post-analysis is released.
OneKey stated that the hacker most likely confirmed that the computers of Bybit's three multi-signers had been compromised, meeting the conditions for an attack, and were waiting for them to operate. Next, when the multi-signature staff executed daily transfer signatures, the hacker replaced the signature content. The staff looked at the webpage thinking it was a normal transaction like a transfer—unbeknownst to them, it had been changed to a transaction to "upgrade the safe contract to replace it with the previously deployed malicious contract." Thus, the tragedy occurred. The backdoored malicious contract was easily exploited by the hacker to extract all funds.
Bybit stated that it will not immediately purchase ETH but will rely on partners to provide bridge loans. It will ensure that all users can withdraw, but due to traffic being 100 times the usual, it will take some time to process, and some risk confirmations will be needed for large withdrawals.
Dilation Effect pointed out that ordinary hardware wallets combined with the Safe multi-signature mechanism can no longer meet the security management needs of large funds. If the attacker has enough patience to deal with multiple signers, then the entire operation process has no other measures to further ensure security. The security management of large funds must use institutional-grade custody solutions.
According to DeFiLlama data, including the funds that were hacked, Bybit's total outflow in the last 24 hours was $2.399 billion. Currently, the platform has over $14 billion in on-chain verifiable assets, with Bitcoin and USDT accounting for nearly 70%. Bybit announced that it has reported the case to the relevant authorities and will provide updates as more information becomes available. Additionally, cooperation with on-chain analysis providers has helped identify and separate relevant addresses, aiming to reduce the ability of malicious actors to dispose of ETH through legitimate markets.
This incident may spark discussions about an Ethereum fork. Conor Grogan stated that although he believes the calls for a fork are too radical, he expects there will be a real debate on the issue. Arthur Hayes stated that as a large holder of Ethereum, he believes Ethereum has not been "currency" since the hard fork after the 2016 DAO hack. He stated that if the community decides to roll back again, he would support that decision, as the community had already voted against immutability in 2016; why not do it again?
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
