Let’s further consider the logical possibilities of Venus Protocol being attacked: 1) Security experts say that some big investors were phished. Conventional wisdom suggests that they could just withdraw funds directly with the private key. How could there be a flash loan? Most likely, the hacker obtained updateDelegate authorization through social engineering, gaining access to the account of a large investor, but without immediate liquidity to withdraw. In layman's terms, the hacker obtained the authority, but the large investor only had collateral, not the borrowed funds. The hacker had to find a way to obtain the collateral of the large investor. 2) Is it that the individual phishing incidents involving the major investor have nothing to do with the Venus contract? As mentioned earlier, if the hacker discovered that the major investor's account had no liquidity, their efforts would normally be in vain. But why was it possible to withdraw collateral through a simple flash loan attack? The answer lies in the Venus contract mechanism. The hacker may have used flash loans and a series of vToken cross-platform exchange rate differences to help the major investor repay the collateral and even withdraw some extra. Simply put, it is true that the collateral of the big investors was stolen, but it is very likely that it will become a bad debt of the Venus contract platform, unless the big investors are stupid enough to pay back the platform. 3) While other users' funds are temporarily safe, the Venus platform faces significant liability concerns. While the attack was triggered by a large investor being phished by a social engineering scheme, the platform ultimately profited. The $30 million stolen is likely to become bad debt for the Venus platform, and coupled with the temporary panic and bank run, the impact could be devastating for Venus. But the greater impact is that this incident has brought back horrific memories of Venus's habitual attacks. The XVS price manipulation incident and its use as a tool for money laundering via BNB's cross-chain bridge are all examples of damage caused by fundamental flaws in Venus's security engineering. As the largest lending protocol on BSC, this is unacceptable. Note: The above is based on reasonable speculation based on the currently disclosed information. The details will be determined based on actual disclosed details.Let’s further consider the logical possibilities of Venus Protocol being attacked: 1) Security experts say that some big investors were phished. Conventional wisdom suggests that they could just withdraw funds directly with the private key. How could there be a flash loan? Most likely, the hacker obtained updateDelegate authorization through social engineering, gaining access to the account of a large investor, but without immediate liquidity to withdraw. In layman's terms, the hacker obtained the authority, but the large investor only had collateral, not the borrowed funds. The hacker had to find a way to obtain the collateral of the large investor. 2) Is it that the individual phishing incidents involving the major investor have nothing to do with the Venus contract? As mentioned earlier, if the hacker discovered that the major investor's account had no liquidity, their efforts would normally be in vain. But why was it possible to withdraw collateral through a simple flash loan attack? The answer lies in the Venus contract mechanism. The hacker may have used flash loans and a series of vToken cross-platform exchange rate differences to help the major investor repay the collateral and even withdraw some extra. Simply put, it is true that the collateral of the big investors was stolen, but it is very likely that it will become a bad debt of the Venus contract platform, unless the big investors are stupid enough to pay back the platform. 3) While other users' funds are temporarily safe, the Venus platform faces significant liability concerns. While the attack was triggered by a large investor being phished by a social engineering scheme, the platform ultimately profited. The $30 million stolen is likely to become bad debt for the Venus platform, and coupled with the temporary panic and bank run, the impact could be devastating for Venus. But the greater impact is that this incident has brought back horrific memories of Venus's habitual attacks. The XVS price manipulation incident and its use as a tool for money laundering via BNB's cross-chain bridge are all examples of damage caused by fundamental flaws in Venus's security engineering. As the largest lending protocol on BSC, this is unacceptable. Note: The above is based on reasonable speculation based on the currently disclosed information. The details will be determined based on actual disclosed details.

Why is it always stolen? On the systemic flaws in Venus contract design

2025/09/03 13:00

Let’s further consider the logical possibilities of Venus Protocol being attacked:

1) Security experts say that some big investors were phished. Conventional wisdom suggests that they could just withdraw funds directly with the private key. How could there be a flash loan?

Most likely, the hacker obtained updateDelegate authorization through social engineering, gaining access to the account of a large investor, but without immediate liquidity to withdraw. In layman's terms, the hacker obtained the authority, but the large investor only had collateral, not the borrowed funds. The hacker had to find a way to obtain the collateral of the large investor.

2) Is it that the individual phishing incidents involving the major investor have nothing to do with the Venus contract? As mentioned earlier, if the hacker discovered that the major investor's account had no liquidity, their efforts would normally be in vain. But why was it possible to withdraw collateral through a simple flash loan attack? The answer lies in the Venus contract mechanism. The hacker may have used flash loans and a series of vToken cross-platform exchange rate differences to help the major investor repay the collateral and even withdraw some extra.

Simply put, it is true that the collateral of the big investors was stolen, but it is very likely that it will become a bad debt of the Venus contract platform, unless the big investors are stupid enough to pay back the platform.

3) While other users' funds are temporarily safe, the Venus platform faces significant liability concerns. While the attack was triggered by a large investor being phished by a social engineering scheme, the platform ultimately profited. The $30 million stolen is likely to become bad debt for the Venus platform, and coupled with the temporary panic and bank run, the impact could be devastating for Venus.

But the greater impact is that this incident has brought back horrific memories of Venus's habitual attacks. The XVS price manipulation incident and its use as a tool for money laundering via BNB's cross-chain bridge are all examples of damage caused by fundamental flaws in Venus's security engineering. As the largest lending protocol on BSC, this is unacceptable. Note: The above is based on reasonable speculation based on the currently disclosed information. The details will be determined based on actual disclosed details.

Market Opportunity
Binance Coin Logo
Binance Coin Price(BNB)
$859.48
$859.48$859.48
-0.95%
USD
Binance Coin (BNB) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

MFS Releases Closed-End Fund Income Distribution Sources for Certain Funds

MFS Releases Closed-End Fund Income Distribution Sources for Certain Funds

BOSTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–MFS Investment Management® (MFS®) released today the distribution income sources for five of its closed-end funds for December 2025: MFS®
Share
AI Journal2025/12/23 05:45
BlackRock boosts AI and US equity exposure in $185 billion models

BlackRock boosts AI and US equity exposure in $185 billion models

The post BlackRock boosts AI and US equity exposure in $185 billion models appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. BlackRock is steering $185 billion worth of model portfolios deeper into US stocks and artificial intelligence. The decision came this week as the asset manager adjusted its entire model suite, increasing its equity allocation and dumping exposure to international developed markets. The firm now sits 2% overweight on stocks, after money moved between several of its biggest exchange-traded funds. This wasn’t a slow shuffle. Billions flowed across multiple ETFs on Tuesday as BlackRock executed the realignment. The iShares S&P 100 ETF (OEF) alone brought in $3.4 billion, the largest single-day haul in its history. The iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) collected $2.3 billion, while the iShares US Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF (DYNF) added nearly $2 billion. The rebalancing triggered swift inflows and outflows that realigned investor exposure on the back of performance data and macroeconomic outlooks. BlackRock raises equities on strong US earnings The model updates come as BlackRock backs the rally in American stocks, fueled by strong earnings and optimism around rate cuts. In an investment letter obtained by Bloomberg, the firm said US companies have delivered 11% earnings growth since the third quarter of 2024. Meanwhile, earnings across other developed markets barely touched 2%. That gap helped push the decision to drop international holdings in favor of American ones. Michael Gates, lead portfolio manager for BlackRock’s Target Allocation ETF model portfolio suite, said the US market is the only one showing consistency in sales growth, profit delivery, and revisions in analyst forecasts. “The US equity market continues to stand alone in terms of earnings delivery, sales growth and sustainable trends in analyst estimates and revisions,” Michael wrote. He added that non-US developed markets lagged far behind, especially when it came to sales. This week’s changes reflect that position. The move was made ahead of the Federal…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:44
Foreigner’s Lou Gramm Revisits The Band’s Classic ‘4’ Album, Now Reissued

Foreigner’s Lou Gramm Revisits The Band’s Classic ‘4’ Album, Now Reissued

The post Foreigner’s Lou Gramm Revisits The Band’s Classic ‘4’ Album, Now Reissued appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. American-based rock band Foreigner performs onstage at the Rosemont Horizon, Rosemont, Illinois, November 8, 1981. Pictured are, from left, Mick Jones, on guitar, and vocalist Lou Gramm. (Photo by Paul Natkin/Getty Images) Getty Images Singer Lou Gramm has a vivid memory of recording the ballad “Waiting for a Girl Like You” at New York City’s Electric Lady Studio for his band Foreigner more than 40 years ago. Gramm was adding his vocals for the track in the control room on the other side of the glass when he noticed a beautiful woman walking through the door. “She sits on the sofa in front of the board,” he says. “She looked at me while I was singing. And every now and then, she had a little smile on her face. I’m not sure what that was, but it was driving me crazy. “And at the end of the song, when I’m singing the ad-libs and stuff like that, she gets up,” he continues. “She gives me a little smile and walks out of the room. And when the song ended, I would look up every now and then to see where Mick [Jones] and Mutt [Lange] were, and they were pushing buttons and turning knobs. They were not aware that she was even in the room. So when the song ended, I said, ‘Guys, who was that woman who walked in? She was beautiful.’ And they looked at each other, and they went, ‘What are you talking about? We didn’t see anything.’ But you know what? I think they put her up to it. Doesn’t that sound more like them?” “Waiting for a Girl Like You” became a massive hit in 1981 for Foreigner off their album 4, which peaked at number one on the Billboard chart for 10 weeks and…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:26