this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
231 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
74003 readers
2967 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How does one get ones hands on a cold wallet?
It's a common misconception that a "cold wallet" is offline. It's still on the blockchain like any other wallet, it's just the keys that aren't on any network-connected computer.
It appears that in this case hackers managed to trick Bybit employees into entering the keys into a fake UI that gave the hackers access to them.
That’s room temperature wallet. It was used while claiming asset unused.
It is not cold storage anymore.
Tricked or “tricked”.
What I don't quite understand is how there is 1.5 billion in a single wallet. Or how are these things structured?
This article puts their total assets under management at $15.7b, which are held in different cryptocurrencies with ethereum at just above $5b.
So I am wondering how they have more than 1/6 of their Ethereum in a single wallet or were these multiple that were connected and got compromised through the same vulnerability? How expensive is it to have more individual wallets? Would it not be feasible to have it split in something like $100m chunks? Or any other more moderate size.
Do I understand this correctly, then, that this was some sort of MITM attack where valid requests to the multisig parties were replaced by malicious code while still appearing to be valid to the signers? That must be an inside job.
And this is the first time I have heard the word "musked" in this context.....
I have no idea. I guess they'll release a lot more info regarding this in the next few days.
I think his English isn't good looking at the rest of the message. Might be "masked" instead.
I recommend gloves.
Well, either it wasn't as offline as they all thought, or someone pulled off an epic inside job.
Social engineering, they convinced multiple key holders to sign a transaction.
The weakest part of any secure system.
With steely determination