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
Web3 Attack Surfaces: A Penetration Testing Overview
Security Services

Web3 Attack Surfaces: A Penetration Testing Overview

Crypto institutions keep every traditional attack surface and add the money-handling chain on top of it. This article gives testers a practical abstraction of the running system: a four-component model—Application, Authorization and Signing, Blockchain Interaction, and Infrastructure—with each component's responsibility, representative implementations, and inherited attack surfaces. It then structures web3-specific coverage into five attack-surface areas, from production and automation operations through signing intent, approval and withdrawal chains, and fund logic to on-chain transactions and deployed contracts.

~$23M Lost: Cosmos EVM, Moonwell Exploits | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$23M Lost: Cosmos EVM, Moonwell Exploits | BlockSec Weekly

During the reporting period (2026/08/22 - 2026/08/30), we cover 5 blockchain security incidents totaling approximately $22.7M in losses; an estimated $74M-$119.5M was drained from Tectonic, most of it erased when Cronos was rolled back to its pre-exploit state. The highlight is a six-chain Cosmos EVM exploit series (~$5.7M realized), traced on TAC Chain, where a shared balance-synchronization bug chained an underflow and an overflow to drain a staking pool. The report also analyzes Moonwell's combined collateral-accounting and oracle price manipulation, Tectonic's combined oracle-price and receipt-token exchange-rate manipulation of low-liquidity collateral, an Ajna liquidation business-logic flaw, and a Rain Card Contract Exploit Series with an Ed25519 signature-verification bypass (Avici, Tria, and others) on Solana.

Rules of Engagement and Production Safety for Institutional Blockchain Penetration Testing
Security Services

Rules of Engagement and Production Safety for Institutional Blockchain Penetration Testing

A penetration test that touches signing, withdrawal, and ledger systems is prepared before it runs. This article follows the engagement lifecycle: turning a business decision into objective, scope, named owners, and authorized access; recording authority, permitted techniques, operating limits, prohibited activity, communications, and evidence handling in a Rules of Engagement document; and protecting live service with measurable stop criteria, monitoring, change coordination, and named pause authority. It closes with the remediation and retest that turn findings into validated controls.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

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

BlockSec Audit