Radiant Capital - REKT

2024 is off to a bright start...

Lending protool Radiant Capital lost 1900 ETH ($4.5M), yesterday, to a known bug affecting freshly-launched markets.

Radiant, a fork of Aave V2, operates on Arbitrum and BSC, with the hack occurring on the Arbitrum deployment’s new native USDC market.

It appears the attacker had been lying in wait, likely having identified the vulnerability in Aave-forks via updates to the Aave protocol itself.

The attacker’s address, as well as Discord screenshots, were posted to Twitter, raising the alarm. An official confirmation came later, adding:

No current funds are at risk.

So, just the $4.5M that had already been stolen, then?

Credit: Peckshield, Ancilia

The issue in forked Aave V2 code affects recently-launched (and therefore empty) markets.

A potential attacker has a brief window after launch to use a flash loan to manipulate the value of collateral, thanks to the combination of a rounding error and a totalSupply value of 0.

The exploiter wasted no time, deploying their attack contract just six seconds after the new market was activated.

The bug was previously mitigated in the original Aave protocol by simply including an initial deposit with the creation of new markets, ensuring they are never sitting empty.

Given the speed of the attack, the attacker had clearly prepared everything in advance whilst waiting for the proposal to add the market (which passed on December 25th) to be enacted.

Attacker’s address: 0x826d5f4d8084980366f975e10db6c4cf1f9dde6d

Attack contract: 0x39519c027b503f40867548fb0c890b11728faa8f

Attack tx 1: 0x1ce7e9a9…

Attack tx 2: 0x2af55638…

Attack tx 3: 0xc5c4bbdd…

The Radiant Team has sent an on-chain message to the hacker’s address (where funds remain), and appear confident that they’re dealing with a whitehat “for various reasons”.

Despite four audits, from OpenZeppelin, BlockSec, Peckshield and Zokyo, a constantly-evolving security landscape means updates must be made in a timely manner.

Especially when dealing with forked code.

We've discussed the risks of forks plenty of times, with multiple leaderboard entries down to vulnerabilities patched in one place before being exploited elsewhere.

When copy-pasting an established project, more eyes are focused on the original project’s larger TVL, providing an early warning system for bugs like these.

But if lessons aren’t learned, there’s little to be done.

Are any other forked protocols planning to launch new markets soon?

Are they up to date on the risks?

REKT는 익명 작성자들에 의한 공공 플랫폼이며, REKT에 작성된 관점이나 내용에 대해서 그 어떤 책임도 지지 않습니다.

기부 (ETH / ERC20): 0x3C5c2F4bCeC51a36494682f91Dbc6cA7c63B514C

disclaimer:

REKT는 당사 웹 사이트의 익명의 작성자 또는 REKT에 의해 게시되거나 관련된 서비스에서 게시되는 콘텐츠에 대해 어떠한 책임도 지지 않습니다. 당사는 익명 작성자들의 행동 및 게시물에 대한 규칙을 제공하지만, 익명의 작성자가 웹 사이트 또는 서비스에 게시, 전송 혹은 공유한 내용을 통제하거나 책임지지 않으며, 귀하가 웹 사이트 또는 서비스에서 직면할 수 있는 불쾌함, 부적절함, 음란함, 불법 또는 기타 해로운 콘텐츠에 대해서도 책임을 지지 않습니다. REKT는 당사 웹 사이트 또는 서비스 사용자의 온라인 또는 오프라인 행위에 대한 책임을 지지 않습니다.