S7iter (@S7iter_) header
S7iter (@S7iter_) profile picture

Founder/Dev/Researcher in @VectorBits | intern @SupremacyHQ | Web2/3Security Going full degen. 1000x ing 财富的本质是掠夺还是创造

Joined July 2022
Photo by S7iter (@S7iter_)Photo by S7iter (@S7iter_)Photo by S7iter (@S7iter_)Photo by S7iter (@S7iter_)Photo by S7iter (@S7iter_)Photo by S7iter (@S7iter_)Photo by S7iter (@S7iter_)Photo by S7iter (@S7iter_)Photo by S7iter (@S7iter_)Photo by S7iter (@S7iter_)
Seen enough attacks to be convinced: ETH is the best token right now, no contest. Top hackers always prioritize withdrawing ETH, swapping to ETH, and lending out ETH. Not only because it can’t be frozen, but due to its deep ongoing liquidity, irreplaceable position in smart contracts, and strongest DeFi ecosystem.
12
726
Five hours ago, Binance’s hacker deployed an EIP-7702 attack contract and instructed the wallet labeled Binance 14 to authorize it. The attacker then called sweep() and drained roughly $3.3 billion worth of assets, including USDT, USDC, ETH, and others. etherscan.io/address/0x5227f…
6
8
99
35,175
提币卡住了。当我看到XMR暴涨,其他暴跌就不对劲了...
Unconfirmed, but possibly massive binance hack. Entire Binance wallet drained into new EOA. Contract call was funded by Tornado Cash
2
6
1,503
利好HYPE,XMR。 哦还有OKB😑
2
176
S7iter retweeted
Lmao 🤣but hackers actually not so good, they can change id, auth and set 100% fee, for sure they can grab pretty much staking rewards from lazy stakers
just let the hackers run the validator. they already have access, know the infrastructure and probably understand the security better than anyone on the blockdaemon white label team.
1
5
280
🚨 The Fetch.ai exploit has a fourth victim nobody has named: World Mobile. 500,529,231 WMTX minted through its own converter, 03:38-04:36 UTC. Different company, different multisig, no shared signers. Same compromised signing pattern. etherscan.io/address/0x63bbc… This is the part that stops being a Fetch.ai story. World Mobile's converter is 0x63bbc71c, a TokenConversionManagerV2 — the same contract family as the Fetch.ai V3 and the SingularityNET v1. Its owner is a 3-of-4 Safe at 0x9369334c. I pulled the signer list on both multisigs and compared them: zero overlap. Two unrelated organizations. What they share is the shape of the key that broke. Three signing keys, all with nothing behind them FET authorizer 0x69e5446b — nonce 0 AGIX authorizer 0x69697dac — nonce 0 WMTX authorizer 0x09578799 — nonce 0 None of the three has ever sent a transaction. A signer address that has never transacted is not sitting in someone's hardware wallet — it exists to be called by a server. Three separate projects, three keys that live in backends, all three producing valid signatures for the same attacker on the same night. That is the dependency worth naming. Not the contract. How the WMTX leg ran 504 mints, 03:38:23 to 04:36:11. 500 of them exactly 1,000,000. The recipient nets 997,000 per call, not 1,000,000 — the missing 3,000 leaves in two 1,500 fee transfers to 0xe7b81ea2 and 0x48b21074. So the per-call figure is the cap, less a 0.3% fee. Same signature as the AGIX leg: a long run of identical maximum-size calls is what a binding limit looks like from outside. WMTX totalSupply went 1,027,930,149.42 to 1,494,037,869.44. Up 466,107,720, a 45.3% increase, net of the conversions burning in the other direction. Converter balance now: zero. V2 kept the brake that V3 dropped conversionIn on this contract carries checkLimits(amount), nonReentrant and notZeroAddress. The Fetch.ai V3 version of the same function carries only notZeroAddress. That is why the WMTX leg needed 504 transactions and the FET leg needed one. The regression is specific to V3. Anyone auditing this family should diff conversionIn across versions before anything else. The number that is still open V2 enforces a maxSupply, set to 2,000,000,000 WMTX. Supply is at 1,494,037,869. 505,962,130 WMTX are still mintable, and the authorizer that signed all 504 calls has not been rotated. The minting stopped at 04:36. Nothing on-chain made it stop. Do not print the notional The two collector wallets hold 398,577,793 WMTX between them. At screen price that reads $6.45M. Total WMTX liquidity across every pool on every chain is $470,366, and most of it is the WBNB pair on BSC, not Ethereum. The realizable number is bounded by that, not by the balance. This is the third time tonight the same trap has been set. The NTX mint was reported at $462,730 against $27,400 of liquidity and returned $42,367. Read the pools, not the balance. There is a fifth Collector #2 also received 492,397,101 CGV, Cogito Governance Token, minted straight to it. Total CGV liquidity: $37. Nothing to realize, which is presumably why half of it was moved on rather than sold. Where the money actually is collector #1 0x2dcc1085fdcf418b421e45e86e4e54637cc21dfe — 632.92 ETH collector #2 0x83f4424a401a9bb75f90314f21adaea6a9ce09c5 — 83.88 ETH 716.80 ETH between them, unmoved. The FET leg alone accounts for 522.78 of it. Four token mints across three converters produced less than the single swap that started the night. Addresses WMTX token — 0xdbb5cf12408a3ac17d668037ce289f9ea75439d7 WMTX converter — 0x63bbc71c034bc99a905d5594df985c218a35d392, V2, emptied WMTX authorizer — 0x09578799fd680ffbafd3c84276d598cd3b0ac9c1, nonce 0, unrotated WMTX owner Safe — 0x9369334cc21f445731201eca008419751e4e9e5d, 3-of-4 CGV token — 0xaef420fd77477d9dc8b46d704d44dd09d6c27866 Verified at block 26,016,886, 06:19:47 UTC.
2
7
1
25
1,943
The BTC ecosystem has been under severe attack over the past 5 months. I believe these attacks will continue over the next 5 months ,and there will be even more of them.
1
7
1,140
Just today, I came across two instances while scrolling through X: teapawt.net/getAlby/status/2097574…, teapawt.net/AirdropGlideApp/status…
You can stop compounding your NOM now. @nomicbtc has been exploited for ~40 BTC. AllBTC on @osmosis is no longer fully backed. Sad for anyone left holding the bag, but at this point, it's probably wise to fully unwind any bridged assets you have left in Cosmos. Good luck.
762
$Laptop 代币已经开始分配了: basescan.org/token/0xb095274… 链上科学家们已经都开始approve了。 也有好多合约方法开始指向Aerodrome和uniswap等。 我在让ai写机器人监听后被v4hook了3ku😅(第一次被牛), 这个抢完再详细讲一下,现在漫天假高费池。
19
4
1
32
17,148
Never before have I been so afraid of missing out, as I am today.
7
1,946
Replying to @Balancer
An attacker appears to be actively draining funds in what looks like a Balancer V1 attack. The attacker has realized $250K in stolen funds so far, and ongoing. 0x11246C5b75B3a88b05F0238cED6Cd9B8Afc7E0aE Stay smart.
2
1
16
2,199
good job!
23 625 smart contract vulnerabilities — open sourced I collected these findings over the past year from private audit reports and contest platforms Hopefully, it’ll be useful for security researchers and people working on AI for smart contract security huggingface.co/datasets/Zaev…
10
2,712
they never respected whitehats. the hour came anyway.
Weakness and ignorance are not barriers to survival. Arrogance is. @injective got hacked. I joined forces with @S7iter_ to analyze the attack. Injective binary options are zero-sum by design. Buy Q at price P and the long locks P * Q, the short locks (1 - P) * Q. Total collateral should stay equal to Q. This exploit breaks that invariant, then stops the normal refund haircut from putting it back. The break is how a binary options market is bound to its insurance fund. market_id was hashed from fields concatenated with no separator and no length prefix: oracleType, ticker, quoteDenom, oracleSymbol, oracleProvider. Same byte string, two different parses. Example: insurance fund uses ticker = X, quote = inj, oracle_base = USDC_DENOM + SYMBOL. Binary options market uses ticker = Xinj, quote = USDC_DENOM, oracle_symbol = SYMBOL. Different objects, same market_id. An INJ insurance fund can sit on a USDC-denominated binary options market. Attacker traded against themselves across subaccounts. 1) Open long + short at 0.10. Long locks 0.1Q, short locks 0.9Q. 2) Close the long at 0.90 with margin = 0. Gets ~0.9Q back (original margin + realized PnL). 3) Old short still has 0.9Q margin on the books. Open a new long at 0.90 with another 0.9Q. 4) Deposited 1.9Q total. Old long already took ~0.9Q out. Remaining positions still show 1.8Q refundable margin. 5) Market settles with no oracle price and hits the -1 refund path. Missing 0.8Q should haircut the leftover positions. Instead settlement tries to cover the hole from the attached insurance fund. 6) Fund is INJ. Deficit is USDC. Code treats the raw integer from the INJ fund as coverage for the USDC shortfall. Dust INJ is “enough”, haircut is skipped, remaining positions refund in full. 7) Withdraw the inflated subaccount balance. One sampled USDC cycle: 44,099.025531 in, 62,666.979111 out. Extra 18,567.953580 is exactly the 0.8Q gap. Same loop on short-lived markets quoted in USDC, Peggy USDT, Noble USDC, and ATOM. Create an INJ insurance fund that collides on market_id with a quote-denominated binary options market → 0.10 to 0.90 self-trades to manufacture a refund deficit → no-price settlement → INJ atoms cover a USDC/USDT/ATOM deficit by raw amount → withdraw. github.com/InjectiveFoundati… hi @al_f4lc0n 👀
1
1
12
1,510
balancer被攻击者鞭尸了,第三次了。 链上几十上百个攻击tx. 后面几乎都是机器人,Position In Block 0,手慢无。 这类攻击近3个月已经好多起了。
🚨SlowMist TI Alert🚨 💸 @Balancer Loss: ~234k USD 🔍 Root Cause: Balancer V1 BPool `joinswapPoolAmountOut` lets caller specify BPT output while `calcSingleInGivenPoolOut` reverse-computes input via 18-decimal fixed-point math. After attacker compressed WBTC reserves to dust via public swaps, the computed input rounded down to 1 satoshi WBTC yet full BPT was minted. Missing: minimum effective input, minimum pool balance, and relative-error validation; `MIN_BALANCE` only enforced in `bind/rebind`. 📌 Attacker: 0x338c7ec9befbb451d66fd8a468c32184f5689a41 📌 Attack Contract: 0x9caa8d0e44b22f50057d2f4ce0d1446529e11be3 📌 Vulnerable Contract: 0x2257aaac34bcb27900291f7b84ee2565a6cbac57 Impact: Nested flash loans (Spark/Aave, Morpho, Uniswap V3) funded WBTC reserve compression; 4,408.8 BPT minted at 1-satoshi WBTC per join, then proportionally exited to drain DPI, USDC, WETH, WBTC from the pool. Powered by SlowMist.AI Tx: etherscan.io/tx/0x72510b257c… etherscan.io/tx/0xeef311556b… etherscan.io/tx/0x37e47f0f5f… etherscan.io/tx/0xbaedc537df… etherscan.io/tx/0xb2d84f926b…
1
24
5,271
S7iter retweeted
1/ How did the @FullSailFi vault exploit work? After the vaults were paused, @S7iter_ and I compared the attack transactions with PortOracle events, and the Switchboard feed state. Here is the accounting path we found. 🧵👇
We are investigating a security incident affecting Full Sail vaults following a suspected @switchboardxyz oracle compromise on @SuiNetwork. A loss of funds has been confirmed. Deposits and withdrawals will remain paused until oracle integrity is restored and verified to prevent further losses. Updates will follow here.
3
5
1
34
6,218
BarnBridge在 2026-07-15 治理接管之后,距离了整整一个半月, 在昨天又发生了距今最大的一笔授权盗用,还是同一批黑客所为: etherscan.io/tx/0x2779e26ed5… 大户刚兑换成USDC才十几秒就被盗走了大约2.5M USDC ....
I was the first to publicly warn about the broader BarnBridge approval attack. $1.05M was drained. $781K was frozen. One wallet moved $3.17M in time after my escalation through @SEAL_911. The owner never replied. Here is the full onchain story:
15
3,278
S7iter retweeted
The Avici attacker spent $190 to take $670K @avici has confirmed the exploit. Here is what the chain shows: - the wallet was created today at 13:40 UTC and funded with $190 of USDC bridged from Ethereum, just enough for gas - draining started at 16:49 and is still running, 8,857 transactions and counting - every account is taken the same way: submit a signature bundle, call AddCollateralAdmin to make yourself an admin, then withdraw - the second signature check pointed back at instruction 0, so Solana verified the attacker's own signature a second time while the program credited an admin key it should never have accepted - that left the attacker as an admin on more than 1,100 collateral accounts - median taken per account was $24, the largest single one in my sample was $5,268 - a first batch of about $576K was moved off the wallet between 18:19 and 18:34 UTC, and it kept filling up after that The program was not upgraded or replaced. Its upgrade key has not been touched since March 2025. This was an authorisation bug, not a stolen deploy key One thing going around that does not hold up. This was not a treasury drain, every dollar came out of individual user accounts one at a time Did you keep funds on Avici?
52
30
20
429
103,942
趋势行情会好一点。 最近交易量真的上来了,开单频率也高了。 极端震荡还是会磨损,在当前策略下这个几乎无法避免,好在极端震荡是少数。
目前睡后收入主要来自和朋友搞的量化. 跑了多个账户(每个3wu): BTC账户很稳健,实盘刚跑一个月,月化5%左右,策略主要是吃趋势,现在还是震荡行情. DOGE实盘没满1个月,表现还可但交易量太低信号少准备换掉. SOL不好做PASS掉了. ETH回测很干净,现在还在微调,刚实盘. A股和美股现在还在选股和训练阶段.
4
1
19
2,989
Bypass the DAO and Relayers to use the pool directly? This is a form of destruction to TornadoCash. Is there a better intermediate approach?
it's time. i made something for YOU, ethereum user a way for you to try out kohaku. so you can begin to see the future of privacy on ethereum, firsthand this will be a practical demo done live, on ethereum mainnet ❤️
1
9
1,495
大多数研究员只提供了AI的分析结果, 但是事实是那套分析在实际利用中完全不可行。 如果你拥有以下任意地址的私钥,那么才能证明你是对的, 否则是假阳。 因为错误的分析会遍历uid,会将这项难度提高百倍, 除非你真正的拥有正确的算法。 github.com/eminogrande/coldc…
COLDCARD Mk3 Security Advisory If you generated a seed on a Mk3 after firmware 4.0.1, your funds may be at risk. Mk4, Q and Mk5 are not affected based on our early analysis. Read the advisory and migrate carefully: blog.coinkite.com/coldcard-m…
1
1
14
10,422