Back to Blog

[Not All Tokens Are Good] The Quick Analysis of the Paraluni Attack

Code Auditing
March 13, 2022

The Paraluni project was attacked on the morning of March 13 (UTC +8 time). The attacker leveraged two vulnerabilities to attack the protocol. The first vulnerability is the lack of the verification of passed tokens, and the second is the traditional reentrancy. The attacker launched a couple of attack transactions. In the following, we will use one of them 0xf2bba649019ce40a67f0fb74e5e800257d359d9094b6ba6faea14ffa4d3446b1 to illustrate the whole attack process.

Step I: add liquidity to paraRouter

The attacker invoked addLiquidity to the BTCB-WBNB pool (index = 9) and the pool will mint the lp token to UBT (a token created by the attacker.) After this operation, the UBT token holds the pool's lp token. Note that, the BTCB and WBNB is borrowed from the flash loan.

Step II: invoke depositByAddLiquidity of MasterChef The attacker invoked depositByAddLiquidity by providing the _pid as 9 and using the UGT and UBT token as the parameters. However, the function does not check whether the pool’s reserve tokens are equal to the passed tokens (UGT and UBT).

Then the function invokes the depositByAddLiquidityInternal which then invokes addLiquidity of paraRouter. This function will invoke the UGT and UBT token’s transferFrom function. However, these two tokens are controlled by the attacker. In the transferFrom function of UBT, the attacker invoked deposit function of the MasterChef contract to deposit the LP token obtained in the first step into MasterChef contract.

Unfortunately, due to the balance change in the deposit function, the newBalance after addLiquidity is much larger than the oldBalance. In this way, the attacker got double credits in MasterChef contract.

Step III: get profit

The attacker finally invoked UBT.withdrawAsset and MasterChef.withdraw to redeem the lptoken to get BTCB and WBNB. Since the number of liquidity is more than the attacker should have, the attacker will get profits.

Lessons

Besides the reentrancy problem, the passed tokens have not been verified is one of the root causes. We have seen other cases with similar issue, as in the Visor case and the Coin98 case.

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 MetaSuites 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
Newsletter - July 2026
Security Insights

Newsletter - July 2026

July 2026's three largest DeFi incidents totaled approximately $67.9M in losses across Arbitrum and Solana. AFX Trade lost ~$24.15M after a supply chain attack compromised validator signing authority. Ostium's OLP vault was drained of ~$23.75M through compromised oracle infrastructure that submitted attacker-controlled prices. BonkDAO lost ~$20M when an attacker spent $4.4M to acquire enough voting power to pass a malicious treasury transfer with no timelock. All three incidents demonstrate that a protocol's security boundary extends far beyond smart contract code.

~$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.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

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

BlockSec Audit