THORChain Faces Triple Attacks: Could the Hackers Be the Same?

·

Overview of the Three Attacks on THORChain

According to analysis by SlowMist's AML team, THORChain suffered three significant attacks with the following losses:

  1. June 29, 2021: A "fake deposit" attack resulted in losses of nearly $350,000.
  2. July 16, 2021: A second "fake deposit" attack led to losses of approximately $8 million.
  3. July 23, 2021: A third exploit involving a refund logic flaw caused losses of another $8 million.

The proximity of these attacks—both in timing and methodology—raises a critical question: Could the same perpetrator be behind all three incidents?


Detailed Attack Breakdowns

First Attack: The "Fake Deposit" Exploit

Attack Summary
The exploit stemmed from a logic flaw in THORChain's code, where ERC20 tokens with the symbol "ETH" were mistakenly recognized as actual Ether (ETH). This allowed attackers to swap counterfeit ETH for other tokens.

Key Losses (Per THORChain's Report)

Funds Flow Analysis


Second Attack: Value Override Vulnerability

Attack Summary
Attackers exploited a defect where the msg.value parameter overwrote the actual deposit amount, enabling "zero-cost" token swaps.

Key Losses

Funds Flow Analysis


Third Attack: Refund Logic Flaw

Attack Summary
Attackers manipulated THORChain’s refund mechanism by spoofing deposit events with invalid memos, forcing refunds of fabricated assets.

Key Losses

Notable Detail
Attackers embedded taunting messages in transaction memos, claiming to have uncovered multiple critical vulnerabilities.


Comparative Analysis

Attack DateMethodLossesAnonymity Tools Used
June 29, 2021Fake Deposit$350KChangeNOW, Tornado Cash
July 16, 2021Value Override$8MTornado Cash
July 23, 2021Refund Logic Exploit$8MTornado Cash (100 ETH)

Key Observations:


FAQs

1. How did SlowMist track the stolen funds?
Using MistTrack, a proprietary anti-money laundering system with ~200M labeled addresses, covering major global exchanges.

2. What’s the total loss from these attacks?
Over **$16 million**, with ~$13 million still held in attacker-controlled wallets.

3. Could these attacks have been prevented?
Yes—rigorous "fake deposit" testing and third-party audits are critical for cross-chain systems.

4. What should projects learn from THORChain’s experience?
Cross-chain designs must account for token-specific behaviors and implement robust refund safeguards.

5. Are user funds in THORChain still at risk?
SlowMist continues monitoring; exchanges/wallets are advised to blacklist flagged addresses.


Conclusion & Recommendations

THORChain’s triple attacks underscore the critical need for enhanced cross-chain security. Projects should:

👉 Protect your assets with SlowMist’s AML solutions
👉 Learn more about cross-chain security best practices

For ongoing updates, follow SlowMist’s investigative reports.