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
Newsletter - April 2026
Security Insights

Newsletter - April 2026

In April 2026, the DeFi ecosystem experienced three major security incidents. KelpDAO lost ~$290M due to an insecure 1-of-1 DVN bridge configuration exploited via RPC infrastructure compromise, Drift Protocol suffered ~$285M from a multisig governance takeover leveraging Solana's durable nonce mechanism, and Rhea Finance incurred ~$18.4M following a business logic flaw in its margin-trading module that allowed circular swap path manipulatio

~$7.04M Lost: GiddyDefi, Volo Vault & More | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$7.04M Lost: GiddyDefi, Volo Vault & More | BlockSec Weekly

This BlockSec weekly security report covers eight attack incidents detected between April 20 and April 26, 2026, across Ethereum, Avalanche, Sui, Base, HyperLiquid, and MegaETH, with total estimated losses of approximately $7.04M. The highlighted incident is the $1.3M GiddyDefi exploit, where the attacker did not break any cryptography or use a flash loan but simply replayed an existing on-chain EIP-712 signature with the unsigned `aggregator` and `fromToken` fields swapped out for a malicious contract, demonstrating how partial signature coverage turns any historical signature into a generic permit. Other incidents include a $3.5M Volo Vault operator key compromise on Sui, a $1.5M Purrlend privileged-role takeover, a $413K SingularityFinance oracle misconfiguration, a $142.7K Scallop cross-pool index injection, a $72.35K Kipseli Router decimal mismatch, a $50.7K REVLoans (Juicebox) accounting pollution, and a $64K Custom Rebalancer arbitrary-call exploit.

The Decentralization Dilemma: Cascading Risk and Emergency Power in the KelpDAO Crisis
Security Insights

The Decentralization Dilemma: Cascading Risk and Emergency Power in the KelpDAO Crisis

This BlockSec deep-dive analyzes the KelpDAO $290M rsETH cross-chain bridge exploit (April 18, 2026), attributed to the Lazarus Group, tracing a causal chain across three layers: how a single-point DVN dependency enabled the attack, how DeFi composability cascaded the damage through Aave V3 lending markets to freeze WETH liquidity exceeding $6.7B across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Mantle, and Linea, and how the crisis forced decentralized governance to exercise centralized emergency powers. The article examines three parameters that shaped the cascade's severity (LTV, pool depth, and cross-chain deployment count) and provides an exclusive technical breakdown of Arbitrum Security Council's forced state transition, an atomic contract upgrade that moved 30,766 ETH without the holder's signature.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

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

BlockSec Audit