Back to Blog

Deposit Less, Get More: yCREDIT Attack Details

Code Auditing
January 3, 2021

On January 2, 2021 (Beijing Time 07:25 am), our monitoring system ThunderForecast reported a series of suspicious transactions towards the yCREDIT smart contract. Then, we used the EthScope system developed by our research team to analyze these transactions and confirm that all reported transactions are malicious. In this blog, we illustrate the attack details.

Details

The attack is due to the number of tokens minted is inconsistent with the intended one. As such, the attacker can get many more yCREDIT tokens with lower price. Then these tokens can be sold to gain profits.

The vulnerable function is in the _deposit function of the StableYieldCredit contract.

In the following, we will use an attack transaction to illustrate the whole process.

The attacker first transferred 1e-8 WBTC and 331.335 yCredit tokens to the WBTC-yCREDIT Pair pool. Then the attacker deposited 0.5 WBTC to the StableYieldCredit contract to launch the attack.

Specifically, the _value is calculated using the amount (0.5) of the token (0x2260fac5e5542a773aa44fbcfedf7c193bc2c599 - WBTC) based on the price oracle provider ChainLink (line 480, _value is 1466786010075). The intention is to calculate the value of the deposited WBTC in USD. Then the contract will transfer the number of yCREDIT tokens (_value - fee) to the one who deposited the WBTC (the attacker). That's because the value of yCREDIT equals one USD (as designed by the system). Everything is fine except the attacker loses a small amount of fee.

Moreover, the contract will add the deposited WBTC to the WBTC-yCREDIT Pair pool. That's because if the deposited WBTC is locked into the contract, it will lose liquidity. As such, it first calculated the value of the token pair (WBTC to yCREDIT) that will be put into the pool. This value is calculated using the function _addLiquidity. Basically, it is calculated based on the existing reserves inside the pool. Since the pool only has 1e-8 WBTC and 331.335 yCREDIT tokens, the amountA calculated is 44 (amountB is 1466786010075). That means the attacker only spends 44e-8 WBTC (line 485) and gets 14667.86010075 - fee = 14594.52080025 yCREDIT tokens (line 493). At the same time, there is a small number of WBTC (1e-8 + 44e-8) and (331.335 + 14667.86010075) yCREDIT tokens leaving in the pool.

To get profits, the attacker can simply trade the gained 14594.52080025 yCREDIT tokens in exchanges. Interestingly, the process to gain profits in this transaction is far more complicated than necessary. We have also observed a clever attacking strategy in other transactions.

There are a serial of transactions involved in the attack, including (but not limited to) the following ones.

Update

2020/01/03: There is an new smart contract that fixes the vulnerability.

Timeline

  • 2021/01/01 23:25 UTC, attacks were captured by our system
  • 2021/01/02 16:20 UTC, this blog is released
Sign up for the latest updates
~$39.5M Lost: Allbridge, Wanchain & More | BlockSec Weekly
Security Audits

~$39.5M Lost: Allbridge, Wanchain & More | BlockSec Weekly

During the week of July 20-26, 2026, 8 notable security incidents resulted in approximately $39.5M in total losses across Solana, Ethereum, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Zilliqa, and Cardano. The highlighted Allbridge Core incident (~$1.65M) exposed a Solana input validation flaw where the same Pool account was accepted in both swap roles, with analysis reconstructed entirely from the deployed program binary. Other analyzed incidents include Wanchain (~$500K, flawed message encoding in a Cardano bridge validator), Zilliqa (~$400K, flawed nonce generation in a Ledger app since 2019), and Lien Finance (~$542K, flawed validation logic in bond exchange).

~$1.35M Lost: BarnBridge, DeFiTuna | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$1.35M Lost: BarnBridge, DeFiTuna | BlockSec Weekly

This weekly report covers 2 security incidents from July 13 to July 19, 2026, with approximately $1.35M in total losses on Ethereum and Solana. DeFiTuna, a Solana lending protocol, lost ~$570K because the position health check treated a zero-value position as healthy regardless of outstanding debt; the attacker used controlled swap routing and a separate low-liquidity pool to trigger this defect. BarnBridge lost ~$776K after an attacker exploited the protocol's deprecated but still-active governance system on Ethereum to pass a malicious proposal and drain user-approved USDC.

~$800K Lost: Hinkal Double-Spend | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$800K Lost: Hinkal Double-Spend | BlockSec Weekly

This weekly security report covers 1 notable incident from June 29 to July 5, 2026, with approximately $800K in total losses on Ethereum. The Hinkal shielded-pool protocol was drained through a double-spend attack that likely exploited a flaw in the legacy note format, allowing the attacker to derive multiple nullifiers from a single deposit. The report analyzes the probable circuit-level vulnerability, the attack flow, and broader implications for nullifier-based privacy protocols.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

Validate design, code, and business logic before launch. Aligned with the highest industry security standards.

BlockSec Audit