Binance-linked Blockchain Hit By $570 Million Crypto Hack, Binance Says

A blockchain linked to Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange, has been hit by a $570 million hack, a Binance spokesperson said on Friday, the latest in a series of hacks to hit the crypto sector this year. From a report: Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao said in a tweet that tokens were stolen from a blockchain "bridge" used in the BNB Chain, which was known as Binance Smart Chain until February. Blockchain bridges are tools used to transfer cryptocurrencies between different applications. Zhao said the hackers stole around $100 million worth of crypto. BNB Chain later said in a blog post that a total of 2 million of the cryptocurrency BNB - worth around $570 million - was withdrawn by the hacker.

I looked in the shed...

[CRB9000]

I looked in the shed, someone had taken the lock off the door and all my tulips were gone. I'm destitute, I tell you, destitute.

What lock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like another "smart contract" gaffe^Wuse-as-designed-if-not-intended.

Blaming "hackers" is of course msmash' daily wont, but it really doesn't do. Not that these editors will learn. Something in common with the crypto bros.

Re:

[kyoko21]

Code is law, even if that code is full of bugs.

Re:

[Petersko]

If it were tulips, I'd be sympathetic. Tulips have intrinsic (if transient) value.

Re:

[CRB9000]

My money wilted and died. I'll gladly pay you next season for a hamburger today.

Re:

[Petersko]

Being transient doesn't mean their value isn't intrinsic. Everybody with a vegetable garden understands that intuitively.

Re:

[Fly Swatter]

I guess I am the one that has point out that your shed walls are full of holes, the rats were going in and coming out with mouthfuls of tulips. One even carried away your lock!

But I am sure MY tulips are still in there - right?

Scam coin

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pro-cryptocurrency but these coins invented by the exchange, for the exchange, are almost all scams. They manipulate the prices directly because they control both the coins and the exchange trading and offer buyers of it insane promises, because they can, because they manipulate the whole thing.

Was this a real hack or just someone cashing out? Either way it shows incompetence. People actually put their money on that exchange? KYC info too? Uhhh... what's going to get "hacked" next?

Re:

[Joce640k]

Was this a real hack or just someone cashing out?

Me? I'm guessing somebody decided that they had enough to retire and couldn't be bothered to maintain the server any more.

Re:

[gweihir]

Me? I'm guessing somebody decided that they had enough to retire and couldn't be bothered to maintain the server any more.

Possibly. That is why if this happens in a bank, several people will face _personal_ criminal consequences. Regulation is there for a reason.

Re:

[gweihir]

Was this a real hack or just someone cashing out? Either way it shows incompetence. People actually put their money on that exchange? KYC info too? Uhhh... what's going to get "hacked" next?

Well, do not let unregulated cretins handle large sums of money?

actual dollar value stolen?

[hdyoung]

tree fitty.

Re: actual dollar value stolen?

[zmollusc]

So we are looking for a large aquatic reptillian?

Web3 is going just great

[fgrieu]

That's more meat for this public service: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ [web3isgoinggreat.com]

So who takes the hit?

[wakeboarder]

Does binance refund the stolen tokens? If so what is thier cash flow look like? 500 mil seems like a big hit

Bianance will take the hit

[rsilvergun]

because if they don't the whole scam collapses. They're pretending to be banks. So they have to make people think their "deposits" are insured.

Eventually the scam will implode and crypto-bros will find out what an unregulated banking system is. Someone called it "speed running the last 100 100 years of finance"

Re:

[wakeboarder]

I totally agree, the funny thing is that crypto will end up in the same place as banks. Just as regulated

Re:

[rgmoore]

I'm skeptical crypto will last long enough. The primary reason to use it is the lack of regulation; once you start regulating it, you might as well just use a regular bank.

Re:

[Locke2005]

The primary selling point for crypto was that it was untrackable. From the fact that the US government has repeatedly recovered millions in stolen cryptocurrency, I'm beginning to think it's actually trackable!

Re:

[TheRealMindChild]

The primary selling point for crypto was that it was untrackable
 
Hahahahaha, no it wasn't

Re:

[Holi]

What? So in other words, you know nothing about blockchains.

Re:

[rgmoore]

So in other words, you know nothing about blockchains.

Just like many of the people who have put their money into cryptocurrency. Whether it's true or not, many people were convinced their transactions on blockchain were untraceable, at least not traceable to them personally. Part of the thing with cryptocurrency is that there is a huge amount of misinformation about it circulating, and people have made decisions based on that misinformation.

Re:

[wakeboarder]

Blockchain is actually very track-able as all the transactions are there for everyone to see. Crypto is supposed to be anonymous, and in many respects still is but people are beginning to get very good at tracking transactions and tying them to people or accounts. It also even get's more track-able when you have exchanges, if they hand over your info to the government.

Re:

[gweihir]

As regular bank transactions are "too cheap to be billed" (not quite, but I think in Europe it is now below 1cent/transaction, regardless of amount), the crypto-crap does not stand a chance.

Re:

[rsilvergun]

Not a chance. Crypto's value is entirely dependent on illegal uses. While Banks do occasionally launder money they don't do it anywhere near the scale that crypto does and haven't it for some time. The only other value in crypto is its use as a Ponzi scheme but eventually they'll be a massive crash and it'll get a bad reputation even among the marks and suckers.

At this point the question isn't when will the whole thing collapse it's whether or not crypto will be integrated into the broader economy and c

Re:

[gweihir]

I do not think it will get integrated. Just look at what huge fines are imposed when a bank is found to have laundered money. As soon as anything remotely like that is done for crypto exchanges, they are bankrupt and gone. And without exchanges, the whole criminal network stops working.

Re:

[gweihir]

because if they don't the whole scam collapses. They're pretending to be banks. So they have to make people think their "deposits" are insured.
Eventually the scam will implode and crypto-bros will find out what an unregulated banking system is. Someone called it "speed running the last 100 100 years of finance"

Yes, pretty much. Of course, before regulation, banks tried to do that as well, but universally failed. The problem is that the real reserves a bank has have are much bigger than they would ever have from a business perspective, so regulation enforces this. Also, the level of security, fraud-detection, being able to actually recall transfers, etc. that is actually needed for a stable banking system is also much greater than they would require themselves, so regulation enforces that as well. Do away with bot

"Hack"

[The Evil Atheist]

Sure. At this point, I may as well start suspecting that the owners/founders of whatever chaincoinexchange are simply cashing out and leaving town.

Oh No!

[splutty]

Anyway....

I am beginning to suspect I've been lied to

[Locke2005]

"Invest in crypto!" they said. "It's totally secure!" they said.

Coinbase hit by a 1.2B$ server hack

[elcor]

Coinbase security makes Binance look like pros.

Crypto is code, code has bugs

[rapjr]

and is hackable. This seems to have been a network intrusion where the attackers modified the code base to create a fictional $500M. So when the code is fixed the $500M will disappear. However, this is a fundamental flaw in all crypto. We still have no clue about how to write proveably secure code, there will likely always be unforeseen flaws that can be exploited in either the implementation or the code infrastructure that surrounds the implementation to make it useful. Much of code security is basically trial and error, when an attack succeeds a mitigation is devised. The very fact that designing code includes a requirement to foresee all possible errors and attacks tells you that code will never be perfect because people will never have perfect foresight, especially for complex systems. It may not even be logically possible to write code that can not be attacked, let alone protected from the very people who write it.

Re:

[gweihir]

You are describing the security level of el-cheapo hacked together "apps". Ever looked at what banks do in their IT to prevent things like that? I have. It is nothing like the "trial and error" process you describe. It has massive redundancy in its security, which we _do_ know how to do, it just costs money. That is why bank hacks are basically unheard of except at the customer interface.