Back to Blog

How the Mirror Protocol got Exploited

Code Auditing
May 31, 2022

The Mirror Protocol was reported by @FatMan to have been exploited. The blog has a good report on this. In this short article, we will use the attack transaction to elaborate how this happened.

Disclaimer: This article is based on the public transaction and our understanding of the Mirror protocol and the Terra ecosystem. Please let us know if there is anything inaccurate. Any comments about this blog are welcome.

1 Attack

1.1 Preparation

The transaction is used to prepare the attacks.

STEP 1: In this transaction, the attacker first sent 100,000 USTC to the lock contract. This is not necessary to open a position, but it's critial for the attack.

STEP 2: After that, the attacker opened a position by depositing 10 USTC as the collateral and specifing the collateral_ratio as 2.5.

The short_params is specified so that the mint contract will sell the minted mAssets (i.e., mETH) and add the obtained USTC to the position's locked amount.

STEP 2.1: Let's walk through the transaction step by step. First, the function open_position will be invoked to open a short position whose ID is 43186.

STEP 2.2: Since the optional short_params is added, the contract will first mint 0.001208 mETH (based on the current price of ETH) and then sell it by swapping in the mETH-UST Pair.

STEP 2.3: The 0.001208 mETH will be swapped into 4.06582 USTC, the swapped USTC will be sent to the lock contract after removing the related fees (e.g., tax). That's because the opened position can only be unlocked after a certain time period.

STEP 2.4: Then lock_position_funds_hook will be invoked. In this function, position_locked_amount will be calculated by querying the current_balance and comparing the current_balance with the locked_funds.

However, as we have seen in Step 1, 100,000 USTC has been directly transferred into lock contract, the locked_amount will be around 100,004 USTC instead of 4 USTC.

STEP 2.5: Finally, increase_short_token will be invoked to record the sLP tokens.

Till this end, the attacker opened a position by sending 100,000 USTC to the lock contract directly and 10 USTC as collateral. The position's locked amount is around 100,004 USTC and can be unlocked after a time period. The attacker opened many such kinds of positions by sending 1,000 to 100,000 USTC.

1.2. Attack

The Mirror Protocol does not check the duplication of the position ID. In this case, the attacker can feed many duplicate position IDs to unlock the locked amount in one position over and over again.

The transaction is the attack transaction.  For instance, for the position ID 43186, the attacker duplicated 437 times.

Since the original contract code does not check the duplication, about 43.7M (437 * 0.1M)USTC has been unlocked (in this single function call.)

Note that, the other positions have been unlocked with the same mechanism.

2. Bug Fix

The vulnerability was fixed in this commit.

Specifically, the unlockable_positions is a vector containing the position IDs to be unlocked. In the original code, there is no check on whether there are duplicate IDs in unlockable_positions. The patched code adds a check for the duplication of the position IDs.

3. Conclusion

As pointed out by @FatMan and other community members, this bug existed for a couple months and has been exploited in the wild. We believe that silently patching a vulnerability which has already been exploited in the wild is not a good security practice. Besides, we also think the high-profile DeFi projects should deploy some gate keepers to actively monitor the status of their apps and get alerted when something unusual happened.

Sign up for the latest updates
~$11.3M Lost: Multicall Router, Nostra | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$11.3M Lost: Multicall Router, Nostra | BlockSec Weekly

This report, covering 2026/09/14 - 2026/09/20, examines two security incidents with approximately $11.3M in combined losses, on Ethereum and Starknet. In the larger one, a multicall router accepted its own address as a dispatch target, so the nested call reached the Gateway module of a Safe wallet carrying the router's own already-authorized identity instead of the external caller's, and roughly 2,900 `aEthrsETH` was routed out of that wallet into an attacker-created Uniswap v4 pool. On Starknet, Nostra's oracle integration required a minimum of only one aggregated source, so when only two of the three configured price sources reached the aggregation, a manipulated thin-pool quote averaged with a normal quote to value `NSTR` at roughly $49.52, supporting approximately $3.5M of borrowing against overvalued collateral.

~$320M Lost: Liquid Network, Symbiosis Exploits | BlockSec
Security Insights

~$320M Lost: Liquid Network, Symbiosis Exploits | BlockSec

This report, covering 2026/09/07 - 2026/09/13, examines two security incidents that caused approximately $320M in losses, including the Liquid Network exploit of 2026/09/06 that the previous report did not cover. The larger was that Liquid Network exploit, where the rangeproof validation cache in Elements derived its key by hashing four fields — two of them variable in length — concatenated with nothing marking the boundaries between them, so a verdict recorded for one output was returned for another whose proof was never examined, letting the attacker create 4,000 unbacked L-BTC and peg out nearly all of them as bitcoin. On the Bitcoin route of the Symbiosis cross-chain bridge, spanning BNB Smart Chain, Ethereum and Rootstock, off-chain code that reads Bitcoin deposits took the depositor's identity from a field the depositor controls and then subtracted its fee from the deposit without checking whether the fee itself was negative, letting a 330-satoshi deposit mint `46,116,860,184.27388234 syBTC`; the pools it had to be sold through held only 11.26 syBTC, so the loss to liquidity providers and users came to an estimated 9.97 BTC (~$770K).

~$9.4M Lost: Injective, Aquifer Exploits | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$9.4M Lost: Injective, Aquifer Exploits | BlockSec Weekly

During the past week (2026/08/31 - 2026/09/06), four security incidents caused approximately $9.4M in losses across Injective, Solana, Ethereum, and Flow EVM. The largest was the Injective exploit, where an insurance fund identifier collided with a binary options market identifier and the settlement path never compared their denominations, draining about $4.8M; Aquifer on Solana lost about $2.47M because its swap path invoked an unvalidated caller-supplied Token Program, and Notional Finance V1 on Ethereum lost about $1.73M to an unchecked `uint128` cast that valued a debt at zero. Ankr FLOW on Flow EVM closed out the week with about $410K drained through a staking entry point that skipped its pause guard and minted against a stale ratio.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

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

BlockSec Audit