Back to Blog

Our Short Analysis of the Accusation Against the Wintermute Project

Code Auditing
September 27, 2022
2 min read

After investigating the report named Analysis of the Wintermute Hack: An Inside Job published by James Edwards (@libreshash), we believe that the accusation of the Wintermute project is not as solid as the author claimed.

0x1. The privilege of the account 0x0000000fe6a514a32abdcdfcc076c85243de899b

The report just looked up the current state of the account in the mapping variable _setCommonAdmin, however, it is not reasonable because the project may take actions to revoke the admin privilege after knowing the attack.

The storage slot key of _setCommonAdmin[0x0000000fe6a514a32abdcdfcc076c85243de899b] is 0x1488acaeec0884899a8f09209808003200bbe32c28e8f074961d28a1dc78daa1, and we just investigated the storage change in history accordingly. The result shows that the value has been altered twice in the following two transactions:

  • 0x37ab1d41fe3fa405b993c72ad9812d2074d55639f31ead8db2668993f3028f2a (at block 15007314);
  • 0x3456571463b98eb253bfd894f06ed706073942a89fb21c42fc12ea56c190b528 (at block 15575003).

The first modification just changed the value from 0 to 1; while the second changed the value from 1 to 0, as follows:

Note that the attack analyzed in the report occurred at block 15572515 (0xd2ff7c138d7a4acb78ae613a56465c90703ab839f3c8289c5c0e0d90a8b4ce16), which is in between the first modification and the second one.

Obviously, the second modification of the value means the project just revoked the admin privilege of the account.

0x2. The suspicious activity

The report regarded the following activity as suspicious:

However, it is not as plausible as it claimed. The attacker could monitor the activity of the transferring transactions to achieve the goal. It is not quite weird from a technical point of view. For example, there exist some on-chain MEV-bots which continuously monitor the transactions to make profits.

0x3. Conclusion

In brief, this report is not convincing enough to accuse the Wintermute project.

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 MetaDock 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
~$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.

From Incidents to Regulation: Why Crypto Institutions Need Blockchain Penetration Testing
Security Services

From Incidents to Regulation: Why Crypto Institutions Need Blockchain Penetration Testing

Exchanges, payment firms, custodians, and wallet providers now lose the most money beyond the smart contract—in signing, custody, keys, people, and supply chains. Code-level audit and transaction-level monitoring each leave a gap, and traditional penetration tests may miss crypto's signing and fund semantics. This article opens our blockchain penetration testing series with the two legs of the case for institutions in scope: where the risk actually comes from, and how NYDFS, DORA, VARA, SFC, and MAS treat adversarial testing across five jurisdictions.

What Is Blockchain Penetration Testing? Definitions and Boundaries
Security Services

What Is Blockchain Penetration Testing? Definitions and Boundaries

No widely accepted definition of blockchain penetration testing exists, and many proposed ones tangle it with audit, scanning, and bug bounty. This article sets out a working definition—an adversarial, hands-on assessment of a running system, under agreed scope and rules of engagement, that validates exploitable paths and control chains—and what web3 adds: a money-handling threat model whose defining composition gap is the off-chain-to-on-chain handoff. It then maps the five testable capabilities of that chain and routes nearby objectives to code audit, wallet security audit, web3 security testing, scanning, and bug bounty.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

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

BlockSec Audit