Live data from Hacker News

153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack

etherscan.io

71–80 of 754 posts

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

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard fork can't even undo this, from my understanding.

I'm pretty sure a hard fork can undo anything on the block chain. You can start over from the block before the hack. There's probably a cleaner solution than that though.

The problem is, how do you reassign the funds after the hardfork? The funds are attached to addresses and not persons.

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

#72
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…

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…

What if the insurance doesn't pay out because it too is a flawed contract?

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

#73
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…

Solidity is a pretty core part of Ethereum at this moment. It is demonstrably utter garbage, as this bug illustrates.

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

#74
post #54
post #27

https://etherscan.io/address/0x1dba1131000664b884a1ba2384641... -- white hat group exploited the vuln and are holding people's crypto for them.

I don't follow Ethereum closely at all, but I don't really understand a few things about this: - Who's the "white hat group"? Why do people have confidence in it? - Why does everyone believe they'll give back $75M+? If they decided to just keep it, what could anyone do? - How will people even be able to claim ownership of the ETH in a way that's verifiable so they know they're giving it back to the right person?

> If you hold a multisig contract that was drained, please be patient. They will be creating another multisig for you that has the same settings as your old multisig but with the vulnerability removed and will return your funds to you there.

It definitely is an uncanny read.

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

#75
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

Why doesn't the only_uninitialized modifier cause a throw since m_numOwners should have already been > 0, no?

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

#76
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…

I would add one more point: even if both participants in a contract fully understand and agree to the contract, the contract could still be thrown out under contract law for many reasons -- unconscionability, agreement to commit a crime, etc.

If Ethereum becomes popular enough, one day the participants in an Ethereum contract are going to sue each other, and the judge is not going to be impressed by arguments that the contract is intended to be immutable. You can't opt out of contract law just by saying that you opt out of contract law.

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

#77
Can someone explain how immutable contracts get updated? From what I understand you can have one contract forward requests to another, and you can use some storage in the forwarding contract to determine the real target contract. But why would someone participate in a contract that is mutable?

I guess I am just wondering how this contract can be updated, given its on the blockchain and considered immutable.

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

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Absolutely. A critique one could also point at TCI/IP before anyone running servers began to load balance their websites and other services.

Would you blame the the steel (or the concept of bridges in whole) for the Tacoma Narrows bridge waving in the wind?

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

#80

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?

> 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?

Exchange to BTC, mix it, exchange to USD.

> Also has the attacker broken a law by exploiting a bug in the contract?

There are no laws. Only contracts.

Post reply on HN