Beyond the Market Risk: A Logic Bug Identified in SushiSwap's KashiPairMediumRiskV1 Contract

Beyond the Market Risk: A Logic Bug Identified in SushiSwap's KashiPairMediumRiskV1 Contract

On Nov 08, 2022, we detected that some attacks successfully drained assets from pools that are built on top of Sushi’s official KashiPairMediumRiskV1 contract(or some contracts that fork from it). After investigation, we found that the root cause is due to a logic bug that causes the miscalculation of the token prices.

We immediately contacted Sushi's security team, and they confirmed our findings. The good thing was that they were taking action to protect some valuable but vulnerable pools from being attacked. Besides, they also provided procedures to compensate those that lost funds from the exploit. As such, we now believe it is safe to disclose the details about the vulnerability and the attacks. In this report, we'd like to provide a detailed analysis.

Vulnerability Analysis

After anaylzing the source code of the KashiPairMediumRiskV1 contract, we conclude that this bug lies in the borrow function, which uses the outdated exchangeRate to verify the borrow share in the solvent modifier. Specifically, the verification will be performed based on the current value of exchangeRate in the _isSolvent function.

While in the liquidate function, the updateExchangeRate function is invoked at the very beginning. Hence the verfication and calculation will be performed based on the updated value.

Obviously, this bug could be exploited to lead to a (huge) price difference.

Attack Analysis

We observed two attacks:

  1. 0xcf8f242ea83100b6d43e659f7f53a698d304fc6ac2ca6fe79e3e07ee05fefe58: the victim uses the KashiPairMediumRiskV1 contract, and the loss is around 9,466 USDC.
  2. 0x3d163bfbec5686d428a6d43e45e2626a220cc4fcfac7620c620b82c1f2537c78: the victim is a strategy contract uses CauldronMediumRiskV1 (the fork of KashiPairMediumRiskV1), and the loss is around 110,911 MIM.

Note that, the first attack transaction was launched by a bot which front-runs the original attack transaction: 0x7a845d8d2af7919f5b9e22dd5571305cb5347d17986a8402715c1463d515fc18, and the original attacker address is 0xb7ea0f0f8c6df7a61bf024db21bbe85ac5688005.

Here we take the first attack transaction as an example, which consists of the following steps:

  1. Borrowing a flashloan of 40,900 BADGER and 121,904 USDC from Balancer.
  2. Depositing 40,900 BADGER and 113,599 USDC to BentoBox.
  3. Invoking the addCollateral function of kmBADGER/USDC-LINK to deposit 40,900,000,000,000,000,000,000 shares of BADGER.
  4. Invoking the addAsset function of kmBADGER/USDC-LINK to deposit 112,529,000,000 shares of USDC.
  5. Invoking the borrow function to borrow 120,755,095,093 shares of USDC.
  6. Invoking the UpdateExchangeRate function.
  7. Invoking the liquidate function to liquidate itself.
  8. Withdraw 40,899 BADGER and 123,006 USDC from BentoBox.
  9. Repaying the flashloan and obtaining a profit of about 9466 USDC.

Note that step 6 is not necessary, because the borrow function will invoke the UpdateExchangeRate function.

The key steps are as follows:

It is not difficult to figure that the value of exchangeRate used in the borrow function deviates from the value used in the liquidate function:

  • In the borrow function: 250,997,938,545,109,237,740,214,705,193
  • In the liquidate function: 328,266,883,541,864,569,505,752,156,794

The Impact

There are dozens of pools (on both Ethereum and BSC) that might be affected by this bug. A temporary method to mitigate this issue is to reduce or eliminate the deviation by invoking the UpdateExchangeRate function occasionally (or periodically). This method has already been adopted by many affected projects and the corresponding transactions can be observed in the wild.

Takeaway

Making a DeFi project secure is not an easy job. Besides the code audit, we think the community should take a proactive method to monitor the project status, and block the attack before it even takes place.

About BlockSec

BlockSec is a pioneering blockchain security company established in 2021 by a group of globally distinguished security experts. The company is committed to enhancing security and usability for the emerging Web3 world in order to facilitate its mass adoption. To this end, BlockSec provides smart contract and EVM chain security auditing services, the Phalcon platform for security development and blocking threats proactively, the MetaSleuth platform for fund tracking and investigation, and MetaDock extension for web3 builders surfing efficiently in the crypto world.

To date, the company has served over 300 esteemed clients such as MetaMask, Uniswap Foundation, Compound, Forta, and PancakeSwap, and received tens of millions of US dollars in two rounds of financing from preeminent investors, including Matrix Partners, Vitalbridge Capital, and Fenbushi Capital.

Official website: https://blocksec.com/

Official Twitter account: https://twitter.com/BlockSecTeam

Sign up for the latest updates
Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Feb 9 – Feb 15, 2026

Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Feb 9 – Feb 15, 2026

During the week of February 9 to February 15, 2026, three blockchain security incidents were reported with total losses of ~$657K. All incidents occurred on the BNB Smart Chain and involved flawed business logic in DeFi token contracts. The primary causes included an unchecked balance withdrawal from an intermediary contract that allowed donation-based inflation of a liquidity addition targeted by a sandwich attack, a post-swap deflationary clawback that returned sold tokens to the caller while draining pool reserves to create a repeatable price-manipulation primitive, and a token transfer override that burned tokens directly from a Uniswap V2 pair's balance and force-synced reserves within the same transaction to artificially inflate the token price.

Top 10 "Awesome" Security Incidents in 2025

Top 10 "Awesome" Security Incidents in 2025

To help the community learn from what happened, BlockSec selected ten incidents that stood out most this year. These cases were chosen not only for the scale of loss, but also for the distinct techniques involved, the unexpected twists in execution, and the new or underexplored attack surfaces they revealed.

#10 Panoptic Incident: XOR Linearity Breaks the Position Fingerprint Scheme

#10 Panoptic Incident: XOR Linearity Breaks the Position Fingerprint Scheme

On August 29, 2025, Panoptic disclosed a Cantina bounty finding and confirmed that, with support from Cantina and Seal911, it executed a rescue operation on August 25 to secure roughly $400K in funds. The issue stemmed from a flaw in Panoptic’s position fingerprint calculation algorithm, which could have enabled incorrect position identification and downstream fund risk.