▲ 249 ▼ Crypto exchange Bybit says a hacker took control of one of its cold Ethereum wallets, resulting in what analysts estimate was the loss of ~$1.5B worth of tokens (www.bloomberg.com) submitted 1 year ago by Mazdak@lemmy.org to c/technology@lemmy.world 45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] x00z@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dhork@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 child) Do I understand this correctly, then, that this was some sort of MITM attack where valid requests to the multisig parties were replaced by malicious code while still appearing to be valid to the signers? That must be an inside job. And this is the first time I have heard the word "musked" in this context..... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] x00z@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago Do I understand this correctly, then, that this was some sort of MITM attack where valid requests to the multisig parties were replaced by malicious code while still appearing to be valid to the signers? That must be an inside job. I have no idea. I guess they'll release a lot more info regarding this in the next few days. And this is the first time I have heard the word “musked” in this context… I think his English isn't good looking at the rest of the message. Might be "masked" instead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 child) Do I understand this correctly, then, that this was some sort of MITM attack where valid requests to the multisig parties were replaced by malicious code while still appearing to be valid to the signers? That must be an inside job. And this is the first time I have heard the word "musked" in this context..... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] x00z@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago Do I understand this correctly, then, that this was some sort of MITM attack where valid requests to the multisig parties were replaced by malicious code while still appearing to be valid to the signers? That must be an inside job. I have no idea. I guess they'll release a lot more info regarding this in the next few days. And this is the first time I have heard the word “musked” in this context… I think his English isn't good looking at the rest of the message. Might be "masked" instead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] x00z@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago Do I understand this correctly, then, that this was some sort of MITM attack where valid requests to the multisig parties were replaced by malicious code while still appearing to be valid to the signers? That must be an inside job. I have no idea. I guess they'll release a lot more info regarding this in the next few days. And this is the first time I have heard the word “musked” in this context… I think his English isn't good looking at the rest of the message. Might be "masked" instead. permalink fedilink source parent
