It is the season of giving, and Visor Finance is going all in.
Visor allowed certain contracts to mint unlimited rewards.
Yesterday an anonymous actor took advantage of this gift, and withdrew 8.8M VISR from the platform, worth $8.2M at pre-hack prices.
However, the hacker suffered when dumping VISR via Uniswap’s VISR-ETH pool.
Then, last month, the project fell victim to what the Visor team defensively claimed was “economic arbitrage”.
Does “reliance on spot prices for issuing shares” not count as a smart contract bug?…
What was it this time?
Hacker’s address: 0x8efab89b497b887cdaa2fb08ff71e4b3827774b2
As long as the hacker passes their own contract as “from” and the contract has an Owner() method of msg.sender, then they can mint as many shares as they want to any address using vvisr.mint().
They also state that:
“We are engaged with both Quantstamp and ConsenSys Diligence for December and January audits and this new staking contract will be included.”
As the users are to be refunded, it seems the only damage done is to the reputation of the Visor team.
At least they are gaining experience in post-hack PR…
As BlockSec wrote on Twitter:
“Since last time an attack was called arbitrage, can we call it an airdrop this time?”
REKT serves as a public platform for anonymous authors, we take no responsibility for the views or content hosted on REKT.
donate (ETH / ERC20): 0x3C5c2F4bCeC51a36494682f91Dbc6cA7c63B514C
REKT is not responsible or liable in any manner for any Content posted on our Website or in connection with our Services, whether posted or caused by ANON Author of our Website, or by REKT. Although we provide rules for Anon Author conduct and postings, we do not control and are not responsible for what Anon Author post, transmit or share on our Website or Services, and are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content you may encounter on our Website or Services. REKT is not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of our Website or Services.
you might also like...
The Midas touch has backfired, leaving a $660K hole in one of its jFIAT pools. The read-only reentrancy vulnerability is a known weakness of a recently introduced collateral type. Let’s hope this rushed decision doesn’t prove to be Midas’ undoing this time…
On Friday, Raydium, a Solana-based AMM, lost a total of $4.4M in fees from its liquidity pools. Post-FTX, the future of Solana feels uncertain...
Lodestar Finance is the latest victim of the mass market manipulation that has affected both people and protocols across our industry. Lending pools drained for $6.5M put Lodestar at number 77 on the leaderboard.