Get the Crypto Payment Security & Compliance Playbook
Back to Blog

Our Take on the Inverse Finance Security Incident: Price Manipulation Attack

Code Auditing
June 16, 2022

Introduction

On June 16th, 2022, Inverse Finance was attacked, leading to the loss of more than 1M. The attack transaction is https://versatile.blocksecteam.com/tx/eth/0x958236266991bc3fe3b77feaacea120f172c0708ad01c7a715b255f218f9313c. The root cause is that the price oracle utilized by Inverse Finance has been manipulated.

Attack Analysis

The attacker burrowed 27,000 WBTCs from Aave with flashloan first. After that, 225 of them were deposited into Curve and 5,375 crv3crypto was minted. The attacker deposited the 5,375 crv3crypto into the yvCurve-3Crypto and got 4,906 Yearn cToken, which will be used as the collateral in Inverse Finance.

The remaining 26,775 WBTC is used to manipulate the price of the collateral. The attacker swapped 26,775 WBTC and got 75,403,376 USDT back. The swap lift the price of the oracle from 979 to 2,831.

As we can see from the function borrowAllowed, it will check whether the user can borrow the specified amount of tokens with the deposited collaterals.

Specifically, function getHypotheticalAccountLiquidityInternal will be used to check whether the borrow behavior is safe. The price of the collateral is obtained with getUnderlyingPrice

Function getUnderlyingPrice invokes function latestAnswer to get the result. As mentioned before, the 26,775 WBTC is used to swap the USDT, resulting in the lifting of collateral price.

In this case, the attacker can borrow a large amount of (i.e., 10,133,949) DOLA, whose value is more than the deposited collateral.

Finally, the attacker swapped the 75,403,376 USDT back to 2,662,649 WBTC, and swapped the burrowed 10,133,949 DOLA to 9,881,355 3Crv, which is further removed from the liquidity pool to get 10,099,976 USDT.

Then, 10,000,000 of the 10,099,976 USDT was swapped to WBTC again and used to repay the flashloan. Now the attack is completed. The attacker earns 99,976 USDT and 53.2 WBTC from this attack.

Summary

This is a traditional price manipulation attack. We are surprised that why such an attack can happen nowadays, this incident serves as a wake-up call for DeFi protocols to reinforce their security systems.

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
~$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.

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.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

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

BlockSec Audit