A Calculation Vulnerability Led to the Theft of 8,535 ETH from Truebit

marsbitPublished on 2026-01-13Last updated on 2026-01-13

Abstract

On January 8, 2026, the Truebit Protocol was exploited, resulting in a loss of 8,535.36 ETH (approximately $26.44 million). The attack involved a critical integer overflow vulnerability in the token purchase price calculation function. The attacker executed four rounds of transactions by calling functions getPurchasePrice, 0xa0296215, and 0xc471b10b. In the first round, the attacker called getPurchasePrice with a large input value (240442509453545333947284131), which returned 0 due to an arithmetic flaw. Then, they invoked function 0xa0296215 with msg.value = 0, successfully minting a massive amount of TRU tokens. Finally, by calling function 0xc471b10b, they burned the minted tokens and received 5,105.06 ETH. The root cause was an unchecked addition operation (v12 + v9) in the price calculation logic (function 0x1446), which overflowed to a small value, making (v12 + v9) / v6 = 0. The contract used Solidity ^0.6.10 without overflow checks, enabling the exploit. This incident highlights the risks of older DeFi protocols with unpatched vulnerabilities, possibly identified through AI-assisted scanning. Projects are advised to conduct security audits, upgrade contracts, and monitor链上 activity to mitigate such threats.

On January 8, 2026, the Truebit Protocol was hacked, resulting in a loss of 8,535.36 ETH (approximately $26.44 million). The Truebit Protocol officially confirmed the incident in the early hours of the following day. The ExVul security team conducted a detailed analysis of the vulnerability, with the results as follows:

Attack Process

Attacker's address:

0x6c8ec8f14be7c01672d31cfa5f2cefeab2562b50

Attack transaction hash:

0xcd4755645595094a8ab984d0db7e3b4aabde72a5c87c4f176a030629c47fb014

The attacker completed the attack by cyclically calling getPurchasePrice→0xa0296215→0xc471b10b for four rounds. The first cycle is analyzed as an example.

1. The attacker first called the getPurchasePrice(240442509453545333947284131) function, which returned 0.

2. The attacker called the 0xa0296215(c6e3ae8e2cbab1298abaa3) function with msg.value as 0. Finally, 240442509453545333947284131 TRU were successfully minted.

3. The attacker called the 0xc471b10b(c6e3ae8e2cbab1298abaa3) function. Finally, 240442509453545333947284131 TRU were burned, and 5105.06 ETH were obtained.

Attack Logic Analysis

By understanding the above attack process, it is clear that there is an issue with the logic of the getPurchasePrice function and the 0xa0296215 function. The following is an in-depth analysis (since the contract is not open source, the code below is decompiled).

By comparing the common points of the two functions, we can see that the 0x1446 function is used to calculate how much ETH is needed to purchase a specified amount of TRU. Clearly, the logic of the 0x1446 function is flawed, leading to an incorrect ETH calculation. The logic within the 0x1446 function is analyzed in detail below.

Observing the logic in the 0x1446 function, since the final calculation result v13 == 0, the calculation logic mentioned above must be problematic. It is important to note that the 0x18ef function is the same as _SafeMul, so the issue lies in the native addition v12 + v9 (the contract version is ^0.6.10, so there is no overflow check).

v12 and v9 represent:

Based on the above analysis, the attacker's strategy was to input a huge _amountIn to cause v12 + v9 to overflow into a very small value, ultimately resulting in (v12 + v9) / v6 == 0.

Summary

The root cause of the Truebit Protocol attack is a severe integer overflow vulnerability in its token purchase price calculation logic. Since the contract uses Solidity ^0.6.10 and lacks safety checks for critical arithmetic operations, it ultimately led to a significant loss of 8,535.36 ETH. The latest versions of Solidity have already mitigated overflow vulnerabilities. This attack was likely discovered by hackers using AI to automatically scan older DeFi protocols that are already live (including recent attacks on Balancer and yETH). We believe such attacks exploiting AI to target older DeFi protocols will become increasingly common in the near future. Therefore, we recommend that project teams conduct new security audits of their contract code. If vulnerabilities are found, they should upgrade the contract or transfer assets as soon as possible, and implement on-chain monitoring to detect anomalies promptly and minimize losses.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat was the main vulnerability exploited in the Truebit Protocol attack?

AThe main vulnerability was an integer overflow issue in the token purchase price calculation logic, specifically in the `getPurchasePrice` function, which allowed the attacker to manipulate calculations and mint a large number of TRU tokens without paying the required ETH.

QHow much ETH was stolen in the Truebit Protocol attack?

A8,535.36 ETH, which was approximately equivalent to $26.44 million at the time of the attack.

QWhat was the attacker's address involved in the Truebit exploit?

AThe attacker's address was 0x6c8ec8f14be7c01672d31cfa5f2cefeab2562b50.

QWhich Solidity version was the Truebit Protocol contract using, and why was it significant?

AThe contract was using Solidity ^0.6.10, which did not have built-in overflow checks for arithmetic operations. This lack of safety checks allowed the integer overflow vulnerability to be exploited.

QWhat was the key step the attacker took to trigger the integer overflow vulnerability?

AThe attacker input a very large value for `_amountIn` in the `getPurchasePrice` function, causing the calculation `v12 + v9` to overflow and result in a very small value, ultimately making `(v12 + v9) / v6` equal to zero, which allowed minting tokens without cost.

Related Reads

Has Bitcoin Bottomed, or Is a 'Shakeout' Approaching? What's the Situation with XRP?

Cryptocurrency analytics platform Santiment shared key insights on Bitcoin and altcoin markets, highlighting significant signals from on-chain data. Analysis shows Bitcoin's 365-day MVRV ratio has fallen to -26%, indicating substantial losses for long-term holders, a level historically associated with market bottom formations and long-term buying opportunities. While short-term MVRV is near breakeven, suggesting no clear directional signal, the annual perspective points to a bottom before bullish cycles. On-chain data reveals divergent behavior: large wallets (10-10,000 BTC) have been accumulating, adding ~18,500 BTC in 10 days, while smaller retail investors continue buying dips. Analysts caution that high retail demand can sometimes create a risk of a final market shakeout or correction. The altcoin market shows a mixed picture. Ethereum's 365-day MVRV is around -33%, but recent monthly gains combined with overly optimistic social sentiment pose a short-term correction risk. XRP is in oversold territory with 30-day and 365-day MVRVs at -57.5% and -45.5% respectively, signaling potential for a strong mid-to-long term rebound. Social activity and optimism are rising for Solana, while investor sentiment remains calmer towards Cardano. Future direction for Bitcoin and altcoins depends not only on on-chain metrics but also on macroeconomic and regulatory developments. The Federal Reserve's interest rate decision and upcoming policy rulings are increasing market volatility expectations, while uncertainty around the U.S. Congressional clarity process continues to pressure pricing. *This is not investment advice.

cryptonews.ru29m ago

Has Bitcoin Bottomed, or Is a 'Shakeout' Approaching? What's the Situation with XRP?

cryptonews.ru29m ago

Bank of Korea Reveals Results of Tokenized Deposit Testing

The Bank of Korea has announced the results of its pilot test for tokenized deposits. Involving 28 central banks and international financial organizations, the project saw participation from major South Korean banks including KB Kookmin Bank, NH NongHyup Bank, Shinhan Bank, Woori Bank, and Hana Bank. Transactions, from payment orders to final settlement, were completed in real time, averaging just 80 seconds. The test involved 30 transactions across 17 different scenarios—such as corporate and interbank transfers—and was conducted in six currencies, including the Korean won, US dollar, and euro, with a total transaction value reaching approximately $995,000. The central bank reported that the platform operated stably throughout, despite being only partially connected to the existing banking infrastructure. Settlements using tokenized deposits were executed seamlessly, quickly, and transparently. An internal transfer of 20 million won (about $13,890) between NH NongHyup Bank and Shinhan Bank was also successfully processed via the Project Agora platform, which involved connecting to the Bank of Korea's CBDC test platform, Project Hangang. Additionally, KB Kookmin Bank and Japan's MUFG Bank tested cross-border payments using these deposit tokens—digital certificates issued by commercial banks within the pilot, not directly by the central bank. The Bank of Korea plans to continue testing payments with tokenized deposits. This follows last year's pledge by South Korean authorities to tighten regulations for won-based stablecoins, which will require approval from both the central bank and the Financial Services Commission.

cryptonews.ru2h ago

Bank of Korea Reveals Results of Tokenized Deposit Testing

cryptonews.ru2h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片