Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

etherscan.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 754 posts

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#61

Post by pas »

sidthekid wrote: post #51
earlz wrote: post #25

Here's the root error I believe: https://github.com/paritytech/parity/blob/master/js/src/cont... The initWallet function should have been marked internal, but was instead not marked. Unmarked functions default to public in Solidity, so anyone can call that function and reinitialize the wallet to be under their control

Seems like something a code review would have caught. Then again, code reviews and other slow processes are probably not the par for startups.

Or just dumb fuzzing. Or a testnet. Or whatever the fancy word for static verification is nowadays.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#63

Post by Woofles »

joshschreuder wrote: post #52

Let's play hypotheticals. If you were the attacker and you now have the ETH in your wallet, how do you cash out without anyone identifying you and maximising your profits? Also has the attacker broken a law by exploiting a bug in the contract?

IANAL but if someone leaves their front door open, it's still illegal to walk in and take their possessions. I would imagine this falls under a similar ruling.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#64

Post by bitJericho »

sbierwagen wrote: post #44
grandalf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really true. Nothing has to be perfect if there is insurance infrastructure. People should not use contracts they have no reason to trust. As a contract becomes more important it should be viewed/vetted/trusted by as many entities as possible. Users of the contract should pay an insurance fee that goes to the vetters, who promise to reimburse in case of unpredictable behavior. Yes, this means applying some meatsp…

Damn, you're right. And if people use smart contracts to do things that are technically allowed, but have unexpected downsides, we should have a review system in place where impartial third parties review the contract language. Two people should be assigned to speak for and against the unexpected behavior, and then maybe a panel of 12 regular citizens could render the actual verdict.

I see what you did there!

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#65

Post by thiagocsf »

twblalock wrote: post #38
grandalf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really true. Nothing has to be perfect if there is insurance infrastructure. People should not use contracts they have no reason to trust. As a contract becomes more important it should be viewed/vetted/trusted by as many entities as possible. Users of the contract should pay an insurance fee that goes to the vetters, who promise to reimburse in case of unpredictable behavior. Yes, this means applying some meatsp…

> Ethereum offers immutability, and blockchains can foster new kinds of trust, but trust still has to grow organically in the ecosystem. If you need a source of trust outside of the blockchain, why would you need the blockchain after such trust has been obtained?

Automation? Guaranteed immutability?

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#66

Post by Pulcinella »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #58
finnh wrote: post #11

I've posted this before [0], but it's still apropos regarding the foolishness that is Ethereum. [Ethereum] only makes sense if all of the following obtain: (a) the code is 100% bug-free (b/c accidents cannot be rewound) (b) all code-writers are 100% honest (their code does what they say) (c) all contract participants are 100% perfect code readers (so as to not enter into fraudulent contracts) (Strictly speaking, only…

This is somehow the top comment, but doesn't deal with the issue at hand. In fact it entirely ignores it. The theft wasn't due to an issue in the core protocol of Ethereum, it's due to faulty code in a single piece of software (as you can see throughout the rest of the thread). It's a matter of poor engineering practices, not a flaw in the fundamentals of the protocol. If an engineer designed a bridge, and it failed…

Well for one, perhaps systems should not be designed in such a way that a single flaw or mistake brings down the entire system...

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#67

Post by csomar »

joshschreuder wrote: post #52

Let's play hypotheticals. If you were the attacker and you now have the ETH in your wallet, how do you cash out without anyone identifying you and maximising your profits? Also has the attacker broken a law by exploiting a bug in the contract?

There are mixers where you can get close to not being traced and then can move through monero and then to bitcoin.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#68

Post by grandalf »

twblalock wrote: post #38
grandalf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really true. Nothing has to be perfect if there is insurance infrastructure. People should not use contracts they have no reason to trust. As a contract becomes more important it should be viewed/vetted/trusted by as many entities as possible. Users of the contract should pay an insurance fee that goes to the vetters, who promise to reimburse in case of unpredictable behavior. Yes, this means applying some meatsp…

> Ethereum offers immutability, and blockchains can foster new kinds of trust, but trust still has to grow organically in the ecosystem. If you need a source of trust outside of the blockchain, why would you need the blockchain after such trust has been obtained?

> outside of the blockchain

The blockchain offers characteristics (immutability, consensus, distributed backup) that allows entities to trust each other efficiently.

But when you introduce a non-trivial smart contract, there is a chance that it (a black box) has behavior that is not obvious from its source code.

Since the behavior of the contract will cause immutable changes to the blockchain, and since humans can't perfectly mentally model all conceivable source code behaviors and interactions, there must be some other mechanism for establishing that the behavior of the contract matches the common understanding of what the contract does.

This could be sandbox testing, parameter range verification, formal verification, star ratings, etc. As the would-be user of a contract I generally want some reason to trust it.

Ethereum offers the building blocks to create an elaborate vetting, verification, simulation, etc. system. Thusfar, existing institutions have leveraged their own reputations to make users of Ethereum comfortable trusting their contracts. The DAO is an example of the folly of this, but many other contracts are examples of the reasonableness of it.

Over time, Ethereum will build the right meta building blocks to create very rich trust mechanisms which put the meatspace hedging/insurance industry to shame while also shedding much of the inefficiency that ambiguous legal enforcement creates.

Re: 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

#69

Post by AlexandrB »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #58
finnh wrote: post #11

I've posted this before [0], but it's still apropos regarding the foolishness that is Ethereum. [Ethereum] only makes sense if all of the following obtain: (a) the code is 100% bug-free (b/c accidents cannot be rewound) (b) all code-writers are 100% honest (their code does what they say) (c) all contract participants are 100% perfect code readers (so as to not enter into fraudulent contracts) (Strictly speaking, only…

This is somehow the top comment, but doesn't deal with the issue at hand. In fact it entirely ignores it. The theft wasn't due to an issue in the core protocol of Ethereum, it's due to faulty code in a single piece of software (as you can see throughout the rest of the thread). It's a matter of poor engineering practices, not a flaw in the fundamentals of the protocol. If an engineer designed a bridge, and it failed…

> The theft wasn't due to an issue in the core protocol of Ethereum

True enough, but what the parent pointed out is that this class of problems is due to a flaw in the core concept of Ethereum - which is much worse than just a flaw in the protocol.

To extend your analogy - Ethereum is like if a company advocated for building bridges using a process that made the bridge's integrity unverifiable using traditional engineering means. Some bridges may hold up, some may fail, with no clear way to identify which bridges will do what.

Post reply on HN