Cobo 安全团队:WazirX 被盗币事件分析

链捕手Опубліковано о 2024-08-01Востаннє оновлено о 2024-08-01

1 事件概述

2024 年 7 月 18 日,印度加密货币交易所 WazirX 的一个多签钱包被盗超过 2.3 亿美元。该多签钱包为 Safe{Wallet} 智能合约钱包。攻击者诱导多签签名者签署了合约升级交易,攻击者通过升级后的合约直接转移了钱包中的资产,最终将约超过 2.3 亿美元的资产全部转出。

2 攻击过程分析

注:以下分析基于 WazirX 和 Liminal 事后报告、链上数据、互联网公开信息,可能存在信息不全或误差,从而导致分析结论有所偏差。分析结果仅供参考,具体以当事厂商后续调查结果为准。

原文链接:

  • WazirX 博客https://wazirx.com/blog/wazirx-cyber-attack-key-insights-and-learnings/

  • Liminal Custody 博客https://www.liminalcustody.com/blog/update-on-wazirx-incident/

2.1 多签钱包配置与攻击过程

根据双方披露的信息,WazirX 使用 Safe (前称 Gnosis Safe)  进行资金管理,并通过 Liminal 进行协管。该 Safe 钱包采用 4/6 的签名方式,其中 5 把私钥为 WazirX 成员通过硬件钱包管理,1 把私钥由 Liminal 通过 HSM 管理。

正常流程下,WazirX 通过 Liminal 平台的网页发起交易转账,转账地址受  Liminal 平台维护的地址白名单限制。WazirX 的 5 位签名者中的 3 位确定交易无误后,使用硬件钱包签名。Liminal 平台收集到 3 个签名后,再使用 HSM 添加最后的签名,并使交易上链。从链上攻击交易中看,攻击交易中确实包含了 3 个合法签名,且第 4 个签名为交易发起者(即 Liminal),与披露的钱包管理架构一致。

结合 Liminal 和 WazirX 双方报告,这笔恶意多签交易发起的流程如下:

  1. 攻击者通过某种未知手段(包括不限于 0-day 网络攻击、社会工程学攻击等)诱导 WazirX 签名交易。

  2. WazirX 3 名成员,分别通过书签等登录 Liminal 平台,进行 Google 验证及 MFA 验证通过后,查看到待签名交易为 2 笔 GALA 和 1 笔USDT 转账交易,并使用硬件钱包进行了签名。但实际受害人签署的内容并不是代币转账交易,而是多签钱包的合约升级交易。由于实际交易内容与声称的转账交易不一致,Liminal 平台分别拒绝了 3 笔交易。

  3. 至此攻击者收集到 3 名成员对于合约升级交易的签名,再次向 Liminal 平台提交恶意的合约升级交易,并附带 3 个正确的签名。

  4.  Liminal 平台检查签名无误后,作为第 4 个签名人发起交易,交易上链后,钱包合约升级,控制权转移到攻击者手中。

根据 WazirX 的描述,签名人员使用硬件钱包保管私钥。攻击者也是通过伪造转账交易的方法收集到了 3 个签名人的签名。因此推断 3 位 WazirX 管理者并不存在私钥泄露的情况。同样 Liminal 也不存在私钥泄露的情况,否则攻击者无须通过 Liminal 平台发起最后一笔交易。

另一方面,根据 WazirX 的描述,签名人员通过书签访问了正确的 Liminal 平台,并进行了 Google 与 MFA 验证。Liminal 平台也记录到了三笔异常交易的日志,因此也可以排除 WazirX 登录了虚假 Liminal 平台钓鱼页面被收集签名的可能。另外根据 WazirX 披露的设备初步取证结果,也认为 WazirX 3 名签名人的设备没有受到攻击。

综上所述,可能的一种攻击手段是,攻击者通过中间人攻击、XSS 攻击或其他零日攻击等手段劫持了 WazirX 受害人的浏览器前端页面,伪造展示给 WazirX 受害人合法的交易内容。攻击者收集齐 3 个 WazirX 受害人的签名后,通过已有会话向  Liminal 平台提交了最终的合约升级攻击交易,并通过 Liminal 平台风控后成功上链。

2.2 攻击事件暴露出的问题

根据前述分析,WazirX 和 Liminal 双方在事件中均暴露出一定问题。

Liminal 平台风控不严格:

  • 从最终链上的攻击交易中可以看出,Liminal 平台对合约升级交易进行了签名并上链。平台的白名单转账风控策略没有起到应有的作用。

  • Liminal 平台披露的日志中可以看出,平台已经发现并拒绝了三笔可疑交易,但没有第一时间向用户告警或冻结钱包转账交易。

WazirX 没有仔细核对硬件钱包签名内容:

  • 硬件钱包中展示的内容才是真实待签署的交易内容。WazirX 签名人员在签署多签交易时,信任了 Liminal 页面展示的交易,没有仔细核对硬件钱包待签名内容与 Liminal 页面展示的交易是否一致而直接签名,提供了攻击者所需要的合约升级交易的签名。

Пов'язані матеріали

The Full Story of How Crypto Unicorn Blockstream Is Mired in Serious Fraud Allegations

This article details serious allegations of fraud against Bitcoin infrastructure company Blockstream, founded by Bitcoin pioneer Adam Back. In June 2024, investigative account NatInfoSec published a report accusing Blockstream's mining note (BMN) program of potentially operating a multi-billion dollar scheme with Ponzi-like characteristics. The core allegations focus on Blockstream Mining Notes (BMNs), which offer investors fixed annual yields up to approximately 20% from Bitcoin mining. NatInfoSec's investigation raises several key issues: 1. **Suspicious Hashrate & Payout Capacity**: The analysis suggests Blockstream would need 20-45 EH/s of mining power to cover its BMN obligations, but its public dashboard shows only around 15 EH/s. Furthermore, no verifiable public evidence (e.g., grid connection records, import data) was found to support the massive mining operation required. 2. **Questionable Payout Source**: The BMN contract allows Blockstream to use Bitcoin from *any source* (Substitute Performance BTC) to fulfill investor payouts, raising concerns that payouts may not come from actual mining revenue. 3. **High-Risk, Fixed Returns**: Offering ~20% fixed yields in the volatile, cyclical Bitcoin mining industry is viewed as highly unusual and requires clear explanation. 4. **Undisclosed Criminal Record of Key Figure**: Christopher William Cook, a key figure in Blockstream's mining operations and CEO of spin-off Exacore, was found to have a federal felony conviction for mail fraud in 2008, a fact not disclosed in BMN offering documents. His background was also allegedly embellished. 5. **Potential Contagion to BSTR SPAC**: Questions were raised about whether these liabilities and Cook's record should have been disclosed in the SEC filings for Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company (BSTR), a separate Adam Back-associated firm planning a SPAC merger. The crypto community is divided. BitMEX Research validated Cook's criminal record and expressed concern over the high yields but found other evidence lacking or misleading, noting the legal separation between BMN, Blockstream, and BSTR. Blockstream defenders, like Samson Mow, argue the mining is real. Critics, however, emphasize the lack of independent, verifiable proof of the mining operation's scale and the true source of investor payouts. The article concludes that BMN remains shrouded in key unanswered questions regarding its actual size, the verifiability of its underlying mining assets and payouts, the source of its high yields, and the full role and disclosure concerning Chris Cook. Blockstream had not issued a comprehensive response at the time of writing.

marsbit57 хв тому

The Full Story of How Crypto Unicorn Blockstream Is Mired in Serious Fraud Allegations

marsbit57 хв тому

The Full Story Behind Encryption Unicorn Blockstream's Deep Entanglement in Serious Fraud Allegations

This article details allegations of serious fraud surrounding the crypto company Blockstream, founded by Bitcoin pioneer Adam Back. Investigation account NatInfoSec accuses Blockstream of raising billions through its Blockstream Mining Note (BMN) products, which offer high fixed yields of up to 20% from purported mining revenue. The core allegations are: 1) Blockstream's public mining hash rate (15 EH/s) appears insufficient to cover the massive payout obligations from sold BMN notes, raising questions about the true source of investor payouts. 2) Key executive Christopher William Cook, central to the mining operations, has a prior federal conviction for mail fraud, a fact not disclosed to investors. Cook's background and lavish lifestyle are highlighted as red flags. 3) The structure allows payouts from any source of BTC, not necessarily mining revenue, which critics argue gives it Ponzi-like characteristics. The controversy also touches on Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company (BSTR), a related entity planning a SPAC上市. Critics question whether BMN's liabilities and Cook's record should be disclosed in BSTR's filings. BitMEX Research offered a tempered analysis, confirming Cook's criminal record is likely true and the high yields concerning, but found other claims like insufficient抵押证据 less substantiated. Community debate centers on the need for verifiable proof of Blockstream's mining output and revenue. The article concludes that while fraud is not proven, BMN presents significant, unresolved questions regarding its actual scale, the source of its high fixed returns, the verifiability of its mining operations and payouts, and the full disclosure of associated risks and personnel backgrounds. Blockstream has not yet issued a formal response.

链捕手2 год тому

The Full Story Behind Encryption Unicorn Blockstream's Deep Entanglement in Serious Fraud Allegations

链捕手2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片