unforgiven

29 posts

unforgiven

unforgiven

@UnforgivenCode

Smart Contract Security Researcher. participated in more than 40+ contest. code4rena rank #19. https://t.co/RvnS1m7teE

Katılım Eylül 2023
576 Takip Edilen112 Takipçiler
unforgiven retweetledi
TrustSec
TrustSec@TrustSecAudits·
A critical in git released yesterday that can be triggered by git clone of untrusted repo. That's the dream vector to pwn auditors and steal their bounties / audit money. Patch your systems before quoting any new clients! And expect visitors in your inbox in coming weeks...
TrustSec tweet media
English
9
25
140
13.4K
0xDjango
0xDjango@0xDjangoOnChain·
Following my previous post, the Tectonic team reached out to initiate a conversation. They worked closely with me to discuss the reported vulnerability. As a result of our meetings, we have agreed to a bounty payout that is fair for all parties. I greatly appreciate the time and effort that Tectonic took to properly handle the situation. We have resolved our differences, and the matter is now settled.
0xDjango@0xDjangoOnChain

In November, I submitted a critical bug to Cronos (@cronosapp) which they downplayed and have since been kicked off Immunefi. Here's some info about the bug and an example of how projects can simply not pay a fair amount. Report: gist.github.com/fatherGoose1/6… tl;dr: - It's a simple staking contract where you stake your TONIC and receive xTonic at the current exchange rate. - The vulnerability lies in a function called performConversionForERC20() which allows anyone to convert other tokens held by the contract into TONIC. - This function is vulnerable to reentrancy because the caller sets an arbitrary swap path and can inject a malicious token in the middle to gain control of execution. - The contract determines the estimated amount of TONIC that should be received by the swap, and any extra goes to the caller as a reward. - But since there is reentrancy, the caller can also STAKE their TONIC prior to the above function completion. - The caller's stake is honored AND they are transferred back their TONIC, essentially receiving free staked tokens. Caveat: There is a 10 day unstaking delay. So the exploiter would not be able to actually convert the staked tokens back into TONIC until the cooldown period had passed. What Cronos said: Thank you for reporting this issue. The team has verified that the exploit described can indeed work. From our side, we have safeguards in place to mitigate these risks; such as a 10 days delay period for the xTonic minted. As such, there is a low possibility of the exploit realising; as the issue will be rectified before the exploiter can launder the gotten funds. However, we do appreciate your effort in identifying this issue and plan to update the contract to eliminate the risk entirely. In addition, we are happy to reward you with USD1,600 as a token of appreciation. Actions: Cronos fixed the vulnerability immediately, before even responding to the report. My thoughts: Obvious lowball. Cronos's max bounty was $250,000 and they offered $1,600. I understand the technicality with this attack, and would have agreed to a payout less than the max, but the payout would have to accurately represent the value of this report. Mediation: Immunefi mediated twice and confirmed that this report deserved the max bounty. Immunefi told Cronos that a simple unstaking delay is not an adequate means of protection. Cronos claimed: "We have implemented a robust monitoring framework, consisting of internal systems, protocols, and strategic third-party partnerships, which promptly respond to any anomalies within our smart contracts. This is the standard of any big organization, and we refrain from disclosing further specifics to maintain the integrity of our security protocols." When Immunefi asked them to provide any information regarding their automated detection and mitigation processes, Cronos would not comply. Result: Cronos was kicked off Immunefi. Final thoughts from Django: 'Tis the life of a bug hunter.

English
7
3
61
6.4K
damx.ton
damx.ton@0xdamx·
🌹 $ROSE: The Crown Jewel of Telegram 🌹 Imagine a token so influential, it's recognized by 600M+ users *before* it trends. $ROSE isn't just a token; it's a revolution woven into the fabric of Telegram's vast community. 👑 Why $ROSE? Here's why: - It's the heartbeat of the most utilized bot on Telegram ( @MissRose_bot) with over 600M users in 14 Million chats. - it's designed on the platform that crafted its blockchain, making it a native treasure. - A narrative so compelling, every crypto enthusiast, rookie or veteran, knows its name. - They are verified on Tonkeeper - They are also listed and verified on @Dedust_io 🌹 $ROSE is not just another meme token; it's the monarch of the Telegram ecosystem. This is definitely worth keeping on your radar 👀. 👀 Discover more: Twitter: @RosecoinTon Telegram: t.me/rosecointon DexScreener: t.ly/3t7Se CA: EQBdr5b7csZbXhDnQ5U364bpLylHfk8AWcug8TwhzCMVcvPA #NFA #DYOR #Crypto #TON #RoseBot #Rosecoin
damx.ton tweet media
English
26
24
92
14.1K
Dacian
Dacian@DevDacian·
The downsides of the contest model no-one tells you about is: * countless hours of back-and-forth arguing with strangers over the Internet trying defend the uniqueness and validity of your findings, while also attacking the uniqueness and validity of others' findings since unique findings are what pays the big $ * your payout and rankings are completely in the hands of whichever judge gets assigned and many decisions can go either way which can drastically improve or decrease your results * judging decisions can be highly partial to certain "big names" who dominate particular platforms. For example @trust__90 is a huge name on C4 while @IAm0x52 is a huge name on Sherlock; if this contest had been on C4 I'd wager Trust would have been successful in his appeals simply due to his name power there * anonymous judging doesn't solve this issue as auditors are typically de-anonymized during the crucial appeal phase so the name power is still extremely important when arguing with strangers over the Internet * at times there have been very clear agendas to discredit certain auditor's findings with the judges virtually cycling through reasons to invalidate particular auditors' findings * there have been cases where a high profile name has found a finding in one contest on a platform, then on another contest on that same platform another lower-profile auditor found the exact same finding with even more impact and the high-profile name missed it, and immediately a campaign began to invalidate the finding of the lower-profile auditor * when frustrated auditors have appealed the above behaviors and asked "what is the ultimate epistemological standard for truth? How can it be valid when high-profile auditor finds it in one contest but invalid when lower-profile auditor finds it in a different contest with even more impact?" the answer was SILENCE - if contest platforms and judges want to ignore you they can and there's nothing you can do about it unless you want to air the dirty laundry in public like Trust has chosen to do in this instance When you see contest rankings understand that it is not just pure skills of the researchers finding vulns that got them there - it is literally hundreds of hours of arguing and debating with strangers on the Internet. If you are the type of person who loves PvP, loves zero sum games, and loves arguing with strangers on the Internet, then you will absolutely LOVE audit contests! But if you find this whole process emotionally draining and not fun at all, then you will have a much more enjoyable life doing private audits. It is no wonder that the vast majority of auditors grind out enough audit contests to build a reputation then transition to doing private audits and rarely go back to doing contests.
TrustSec@TrustSecAudits

Over the past week, @sherlockdefi and the @Optimism team made what I believe is an erroneous re-scoping of the security contest rules. The direct consequence is invalidation of ~90% of the unique bugs submitted and re-shaping the payout. Long-term, this threatens to be a precedent for resolving rules against the supermajority of honest competitors. Here's the in-depth take gist.github.com/trust1995/fd11… Contest link audits.sherlock.xyz/contests/205 Bugs link github.com/sherlock-audit…

English
23
18
131
26.9K
unforgiven
unforgiven@UnforgivenCode·
@elonmusk Then It's time for you to build more advanced AI-based fighters.
English
0
0
0
35
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
Concerning that less than 1/3 of F-35s, the most advanced US fighter are fully mission capable
English
2K
4.3K
26.5K
10M
ChainLight
ChainLight@ChainLight_io·
If you're a Telegram user, your funds are at risk. Currently, Telegram's 'auto-download' feature allows files camouflaged as video formats to be executed once clicked within the app. If such a file is malicious, it can take control of your system, potentially compromising your wallets and exchange accounts. We have conducted a simulated attack on a PC and confirmed that the malicious code can be executed. To protect yourself, follow these steps: • Mobile: Telegram > Settings > Data and Storage > Using Cellular/Wi-Fi > Disable 'Auto-Download Media' • PC: Telegram > Settings > Data and Storage > Disable 'Auto-Download Media' • All: Telegram > Setting > Data and Storage > Storage Usage > Clear Entire Cache • Do NOT click on files sent by unknown users
ChainLight tweet media
English
5
30
82
25.7K
unforgiven
unforgiven@UnforgivenCode·
@shealtielanz @code4rena @zksync There was no reasonable explanation. I will tell the whole story when the report is out. Tip of the ice: In the past zkSync contest, HIEM's issue(t.ly/LLHfc) was accepted by judge while it's obviously invalid. This invalid solo medium issue received ~$20K payment
unforgiven tweet media
English
4
0
4
515
Code4rena
Code4rena@code4rena·
Awards have been announced for the $1.1m USDC @zksync Era audit 🎉 🎉 Top 5: 🥇 xuwinnie - $502,041.99 USDC 🥈 ChainLight - $157,696.85 USDC 🥉 Audittens - $140,480.81 USDC 🏅 minhtrng - $38,573.19 USDC 🏅 erebus - $25,342.88 USDC Read more at: code4rena.com/audits/2023-10…
English
23
35
381
226.1K
unforgiven
unforgiven@UnforgivenCode·
@0xnevi @sherlockdefi Totally agree with you. I believe @sherlockdefi judging is far superior to other platforms(10 times better) and people involved in judging workflow should be awarded more for their great work.
English
0
0
2
212
0xnevi
0xnevi@0xnevi·
Being a judge on @sherlockdefi is very rewarding, but ruthless - 1 judge vs many watsons and hundreds of submissions - Correct escalations punish judge monetarily vs incorrect escalations do not punish watsons monetarily - LSW often times has 10x pay of lead judge
English
12
0
71
7.7K
unforgiven
unforgiven@UnforgivenCode·
@akshaysrivastv @0xHE1M Hard to believe it, but yes. get banned for trying to reveal(t.ly/w0FsX) the scam some other warden+sponsor were doing. Instead of giving me a medal for uncovering this scam, they banned me and as a matter of the fact HE1M is not banned yet!
English
2
0
5
755
unforgiven
unforgiven@UnforgivenCode·
@0xHE1M in this contest, HE1M increased attack level. facts shows that there were multiple sponsors and multiple wardens that performed malicious actions. zkSync & C4 & judge performed questionable actions(while breaking the CoC) that favored the HE1M and his accomplices. 2/3
English
0
0
0
643
unforgiven
unforgiven@UnforgivenCode·
@0xHE1M Yes, what happened was far beyond the things zkSync & C4 mentioned in their announcements(it's not just some inside knowledge advantages or some implanted bugs). In the past zkSync contest, HE1M's issue(t.ly/LLHfc) was accepted while it is obviously invalid. 1/3
unforgiven tweet media
English
0
0
2
753
ZKsync Developers (∎, ∆)
ZKsync Developers (∎, ∆)@zkSyncDevs·
To the participants of the recent $1.1M @code4rena zkSync competitive audit and the zkSync community 👇 As the competition came to a close, as is customary for our team, we conducted an initial review of the results and findings. Integrity, transparency and fairness are core to our ethos, so we always put maximum emphasis on our due diligence process. During this review we noticed anomalies in the findings, which led us to 1) conduct further investigation, and 2) pause the bounty distribution until the investigation concluded. After an in-depth investigation, we identified a conflict of interest between a participant in the competition, HE1M, and a third-party contractor working with Matter Labs. The investigation concluded that HE1M gained an unfair advantage in the competition by failing to disclose that their spouse was a contractor on assignment with Matter Labs. One or both of the following scenarios took place: - The individual purposefully did not disclose bugs in the system to gain an unfair advantage. - The individual’s spouse received unfair positive treatment by the contractor. We have zero tolerance for anything that challenges the fairness and integrity of the contest. From the possible scenarios described above, both are cause for disqualification. Upon conclusion of the investigation, Matter Labs notified Code4rena and immediately terminated the working relationship with the contractor involved. Code4rena followed course with their standard operating procedure of performing their own thorough diligence and providing evidence to an independent judge for review. The independent judge received all of the findings from our internal investigation, and the judge came to the same conclusion. As a result, HE1M, the participant with a conflict of interest, had their submissions deemed ineligible for awards so that competition funds could be distributed fairly to other participants. It is possible that HE1M’s discoveries in previous competitions were also the result of the same conflict of interest. While we are not in a position to retroactively review submissions from prior competitions, the conflict of interest was discovered by the diligent team overseeing the current competition before rewards were distributed. Our team has put parameters in place to ensure that a similar situation does not reoccur. We deeply apologize to the participants and condemn the actions taken by HE1M. In future contests, as well as in all Matter Labs initiatives, we will continue to be transparent in our communications with the community. We are grateful to our and Code4rena’s team of experts for their impressive due diligence and for raising the bar in accountability and integrity for white hats across the space.
English
38
34
379
94.5K
unforgiven
unforgiven@UnforgivenCode·
@zkSyncDevs @code4rena I found out about the malicious actions and tried to warn the C4 and zkSync and judge by: 1- contacting with another sponsor. 2- publicly saying in the channel. 3- showing facts in scalations. As I was investigating more, I get banned from C4 and contest without any valid reason
English
0
0
0
210