squid

4.6K posts

squid banner
squid

squid

@squidrouter

Everything is here, you just have to look. Seamless execution across 100+ networks ✨

Katılım Temmuz 2022
25 Takip Edilen54.9K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
squid
squid@squidrouter·
We are proud to announce that Squid has raised $6M in funding round led by North Island Ventures and backed by strategic investors! Our new chapter has begun, with more news coming soon. Today we celebrate and say thank you. CHEERS 💫
English
139
68
566
71.2K
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@GuavySentiment This is a third-party exploit unrelated to Squid's core protocol and contracts. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are unaffected by this exploit and remain fully secure. For more information, please read our announcement below. x.com/squidrouter/st…
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
0
1
10
548
GuavyInc
GuavyInc@GuavySentiment·
📉🔻 DAI - $3 Million SquidRouterModule Exploit Rocks Ethereum and Base Sentiment: -4 | Clout: 80 | Speculation: 4/10 | 📉 $Squid Bearish Confidence: 8/10 A recent DeFi exploit targeting the SquidRouterModule on Ethereum and Base has drained $3 million from 86 Gnosis Safes in just two hours. The attacker converted stolen assets into DAI through Uniswap V3 pools, highlighting the ongoing risk of smart contract vulnerabilities in the crypto space. #DAI #CRYPTO #DeFi #Crypto #Blockchain
GuavyInc tweet media
English
4
0
0
431
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@EyeWhales This is a third-party exploit unrelated to Squid's core protocol and contracts. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are unaffected by this exploit and remain fully secure. For more information, please read our announcement below. x.com/squidrouter/st…
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
1
1
28
1.3K
EyeWhales
EyeWhales@EyeWhales·
NEW: 🚨 Squid Safe Labs reportedly hit by a $3.2M exploit after attackers abused a third-party module, highlighting ongoing “supply chain” risks in DeFi where external dependencies remain a major weak point in crypto security.
English
2
0
10
1.1K
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@WizzyOnChain This is a third-party exploit unrelated to Squid's core protocol and contracts. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are unaffected by this exploit and remain fully secure. For more information, please read our announcement below. x.com/squidrouter/st…
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
0
0
11
311
Wizzy
Wizzy@WizzyOnChain·
🚨 BREAKING: Squid Protocol just suffered a $3,200,000 exploit via a third-party module called SquidRouterModule.
Wizzy tweet media
English
4
0
3
536
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@timmi_arno @gnosis_ This is a third-party exploit unrelated to Squid's core protocol and contracts. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are unaffected by this exploit and remain fully secure. For more information, please read our announcement below. x.com/squidrouter/st…
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
0
1
11
651
Timmi Arno
Timmi Arno@timmi_arno·
🚨 $3,000,000 DRAINED from Squid Router in fresh exploit! Hackers exploited SquidRouterModule on @gnosis_ Safe wallets (Ethereum & Base). 86+ multisigs emptied. Attacker wallets: • 0x9bdc730183821b6bb2b51be30b77c964fa645b91 • 0xa447f71782135ab96a71374271a749ff7aa54859 (holds ~3.07M ethereum:0x6b175474e89094c44da98b954eedeac495271d0f) Funds swapped to ethereum:0x6b175474e89094c44da98b954eedeac495271d0f and consolidated. More details soon if the project doesn’t get a white hat return.
Timmi Arno tweet media
Blockaid@blockaid_

🚨 Blockaid detected an ongoing exploit targeting the SquidRouterModule on Ethereum and Base. 86 Gnosis Safes drained for ~$3M in ~2 hours. All stolen tokens swapped to DAI via attacker-controlled Uniswap V3 pools. More details in 🧵

English
2
0
1
654
Sophia Hodlberg
Sophia Hodlberg@sophiaHodlberg·
🚨 86 Gnosis Safes just got drained for ~$3.2M in two hours. The exploited contract is named "SquidRouterModule," but Squid's official protocol @squidrouter was NOT hacked. Here is how it actually happened 👇 THE EXPLOIT > A third-party Gnosis Safe module on Ethereum and Base was exploited for ~$3.2M > All stolen funds were instantly swapped to DAI via attacker-controlled Uniswap V3 pools THE FLAW > Victims had added this module as a "trusted Safe Module," giving it permission to spend tokens without user signatures > The module used a publicly visible string as "proof" of security. Attackers simply copied this string to bypass signatures and drain wallets at will THE CONFUSION > Early reports blame "SquidRouter" because the attacker's contract was deceptively named "SquidRouterModule" on Basescan > Squid did not build, deploy, or operate this contract. It was a third-party tool that merely integrated with Squid > The official Squid router and all user funds are completely unaffected. No action is needed if you use the real protocol.
Sophia Hodlberg tweet media
English
1
0
11
429
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@TheBlockCo Squid is safe and remains unaffected This was a third party module x.com/squidrouter/st…
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
0
0
6
292
squid
squid@squidrouter·
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

QME
0
0
3
181
Glenn
Glenn@Glenn6·
Please share widely. a third-party module was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. Squid remains safe and unaffected.
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
7
6
38
1.7K
squid
squid@squidrouter·
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

QME
0
0
6
353
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@ItsBitcoinWorld This was a third party, not Squid itself Squid remains unaffected x.com/squidrouter/st…
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
0
1
9
318
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@SolanaFloor @blockaid_ Please note Squid is unaffected x.com/squidrouter/st…
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
0
1
11
480
SolanaFloor
SolanaFloor@SolanaFloor·
LATEST: According to @blockaid_, an ongoing exploit targeting the SquidRouterModule on Ethereum and Base has drained 86 Gnosis Safes for nearly $3M in under 2 hours, with stolen funds swapped to DAI through attacker-controlled Uniswap V3 pools.
SolanaFloor tweet media
English
6
3
23
2.5K
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@hackenai @blockaid_ @Uniswap @safe Please read below Squid is unaffected x.com/squidrouter/st…
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
1
1
19
406
Hacken.AI
Hacken.AI@hackenai·
Live exploit targeting @squidrouter flagged by @blockaid_. 86 Gnosis Safes drained. ~$3M gone in ~2 hours. Ethereum and Base are affected. The attacker forced swaps through @Uniswap V3 pools and ended up with ethereum:0x6b175474e89094c44da98b954eedeac495271d0f. If you use @safe, check your modules now.
Hacken.AI tweet media
English
4
1
16
903
Ollie | 🗡️
Ollie | 🗡️@ollieblocmates·
fwiw, @squidrouter users are safe. This is an unrelated incident as mentioned below 👇
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
1
4
23
2.4K
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@MAXdeg0 This is not accurate. Squid was unaffected x.com/squidrouter/st…
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
0
1
13
442
MAX
MAX@MAXdeg0·
🚨 Squid Protocol was hacked An attacker compromised 86 Gnosis Safe wallets across Ethereum and Base, draining over $3M within hours. The stolen funds were quickly swapped into DAI through Uniswap pools. Another reminder that in DeFi, security is only as strong as the weakest integration.
MAX tweet media
English
24
2
35
593
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@0xSam_Szn @PeckShieldAlert Squid was unaffected. Thoughts to those who were. x.com/squidrouter/st…
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
1
0
3
30
Sam
Sam@0xSam_Szn·
@PeckShieldAlert Wow. Sad. Announced funding just days ago and now exploited?
English
1
0
1
358
PeckShieldAlert
PeckShieldAlert@PeckShieldAlert·
#PeckShieldAlert The SquidRouterModule has been exploited for ~$3M in assets. The exploiter, who was originally funded with 2.1 $ETH from #TornadoCash, has swapped the stolen funds for ~3M $DAI. The stolen assets are currently sitting in the exploiter's wallet 0xA447...54859
PeckShieldAlert tweet media
English
8
19
79
11.1K
squid
squid@squidrouter·
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

English
0
0
17
530
ME Group
ME Group@MetaEraHK·
🚨 SquidRouterModule Exploit Drains ~$3M @blockaid_ said an ongoing exploit targeted SquidRouterModule on #Ethereum and #Base. The attack drained 86 Gnosis Safes for around $3M, with stolen funds swapped into DAI via attacker-controlled Uniswap V3 pools.
Blockaid@blockaid_

🚨 Blockaid detected an ongoing exploit targeting the SquidRouterModule on Ethereum and Base. 86 Gnosis Safes drained for ~$3M in ~2 hours. All stolen tokens swapped to DAI via attacker-controlled Uniswap V3 pools. More details in 🧵

English
4
0
4
1.3K
squid
squid@squidrouter·
@0xAirr @blockaid_ Squid was unaffected! A third-party module was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. Squid remains safe and unaffected.
English
1
0
3
38
Blockaid
Blockaid@blockaid_·
🚨 Blockaid detected an ongoing exploit targeting the SquidRouterModule on Ethereum and Base. 86 Gnosis Safes drained for ~$3M in ~2 hours. All stolen tokens swapped to DAI via attacker-controlled Uniswap V3 pools. More details in 🧵
English
44
83
380
192.4K
squid
squid@squidrouter·
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

QME
1
0
13
678
squid
squid@squidrouter·
squid@squidrouter

This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.

QME
0
0
49
3.6K
squid
squid@squidrouter·
This incident is unrelated to Squid’s core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is needed. A third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited today across Base and Ethereum, resulting in approximately $3.2M in losses. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name “SquidRouterModule” but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart-wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid, among other protocols, but has not been in contact with us. The exploit worked because the third-party module accepted a caller-supplied constant string as proof that a message was secure. If you pass in this string (which is publicly available in the verified contract’s code), then you can execute an array of arbitrary calldata, stealing funds at will. The victims’ Safes had added this faulty contract as a trusted Safe Module, which gives the contract the ability to spend any tokens in the Safe without signatures. Squid’s own router (0xce16F69375520ab01377ce7B88f5BA8C48F8D666) is architecturally different and was not touched. Squid user funds, approvals, and integrations are fully secure. Early public reporting may reference “SquidRouter” due to the contract’s verified name on Basescan. The accurate framing is: a third-party SquidRouterModule was exploited, not Squid’s Router contract. The contract shares our name but is not our code. We are monitoring the situation and will share updates if anything changes materially.
Blockaid@blockaid_

🚨 Blockaid detected an ongoing exploit targeting the SquidRouterModule on Ethereum and Base. 86 Gnosis Safes drained for ~$3M in ~2 hours. All stolen tokens swapped to DAI via attacker-controlled Uniswap V3 pools. More details in 🧵

English
65
96
362
74.9K