Reveal the “Message’’ Replay Attacks on EthereumPoW

Reveal the “Message’’ Replay Attacks on EthereumPoW

On September 16th, 2022, we detected that some attackers successfully harvested lots of ETHW by replaying the message (i.e., the calldata) of the PoS chain on EthereumPoW (aka the PoW chain). The root cause of the exploitation is that the Omni bridge on the PoW chain uses the old chainId and doesn't correctly verify the actual chainId of the cross-chain message.

We immediately contacted the official team of EthereumPoW. The team was actively willing to take actions, and they also tried to communicate with the Omni Bridge.

However, as more and more attacks were observed in the wild, we believed that the risk should be notified to the public, and we published the alert on September 18th, 2022.

As there still exists some misunderstanding about these attacks, i.e., replaying the transaction rather than the message. In this report, we'd like to provide a detailed analysis to clarify it.

Attack Analysis

Here is an example of exploitation transactions:

Note that, these two transactions are different, however, the calldata (or input data) of these two transactions are exactly the same*:

0x23caab4900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000180000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000011500050000a7823d6f1e31569f51861e345b30c6bebf70ebe7000000000000e0f6f6a78083ca3e2a662d6dd1703c939c8ace2e268d88ad09518695c6c3712ac10a214be5109a655671000927c00101806401867f7a4d000000000000000000000000c02aaa39b223fe8d0a0e5c4f27ead9083c756cc2000000000000000000000000a6439ca0fcba1d0f80df0be6a17220fed9c9038a00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ad78ebc5ac62000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000080000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001482faed2da812d2e5cced3c12b3baeb1a522dc67700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000105041c1b1c1c981df6cdaf073d55b78d7f0c7e2b421a569bff677a9464d1d5203672d7b5a3d6af658d14ebc11c26f2547fd0aed01750cca58753a0a79b297bad8a62a71eb6b7ac2099611604eff316e7fe733e9981c1b3890cb04ff9d43612e6f2687227f0226cfa27e4b6cd96a10865e04aa9e0f369dda7548771a094f69bf0a9fa6c27257e22d2b1bbb84beb52ad3966592037b328d352fce375a1fa75cb3fbfd18166f4177a19ad2cc74ce67da68f5ce17b857e6382c3ebf20f76482534135f426f4a74222daa07d9f401cb8baca4339ecd44e285df0e0cb88447a31d08b673cecc67d22c7e6e0ce5afd2ac9439c5a8b68f05077b850cdfdfb79cdaefc5b103bb69360944000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

It is just the input data of invoking of the safeExecuteSignaturesWithAutoGasLimit function.

Obviously, the attacker (0x82fae) first transferred 200 WETH through the omni bridge of the Gnosis chain, and then replayed the same message on the PoW chain and got extra 200 ETHW. By doing so, the balance of the chain contract deployed on the PoW chain could be drained.

Vulnerability Analysis

After anaylzing the source code of the Omni bridge, we find that there DOES exist the logic to verify the chainId.

    function _isDestinationChainIdValid(uint256 _chainId) internal returns (bool res) {
        return _chainId == sourceChainId();
    }

Unfortunately, the verfied chainId used in this contract comes from the value stored in the storage named unitStorage:

    /**
     * Internal function for retrieving chain id for the source network
     * @return chain id for the current network
     */
    function sourceChainId() public view returns (uint256) {
        return uintStorage[SOURCE_CHAIN_ID];
    }

It is NOT the actual chainId fetched through the CHAINID opcode, which was proposed in EIP-1344. This is probably due to the fact that the code is quite old (using Solidity 0.4.24). The code works fine all the time until the fork of the PoW chain.

In short, the root cause of the exploitation is that the Omni bridge on the ETHW chain uses the old chainId and doesn't correctly verify the actual chainId of the cross-chain message. Besides, the similar issues may exist in other protocols.

The Impact

The straightfoward impact is that the attacker(s) could harvest lots of ETHW (and also other tokens owned by the bridge on the PoW chain) and traded them in some marketplaces (e.g., some CEXs). By doing so, the price of ETHW might be affected due to the increase of the liquidity. Hence users/investors should be cautious about the trade of these tokens on the PoW chain.

Conclusion

Solidity developers should pay special attention when dealing with the chainId that is designed to be maintained by the contract itself.

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
Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Feb 9 – Feb 15, 2026

Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Feb 9 – Feb 15, 2026

During the week of February 9 to February 15, 2026, three blockchain security incidents were reported with total losses of ~$657K. All incidents occurred on the BNB Smart Chain and involved flawed business logic in DeFi token contracts. The primary causes included an unchecked balance withdrawal from an intermediary contract that allowed donation-based inflation of a liquidity addition targeted by a sandwich attack, a post-swap deflationary clawback that returned sold tokens to the caller while draining pool reserves to create a repeatable price-manipulation primitive, and a token transfer override that burned tokens directly from a Uniswap V2 pair's balance and force-synced reserves within the same transaction to artificially inflate the token price.

Top 10 "Awesome" Security Incidents in 2025

Top 10 "Awesome" Security Incidents in 2025

To help the community learn from what happened, BlockSec selected ten incidents that stood out most this year. These cases were chosen not only for the scale of loss, but also for the distinct techniques involved, the unexpected twists in execution, and the new or underexplored attack surfaces they revealed.

#10 Panoptic Incident: XOR Linearity Breaks the Position Fingerprint Scheme

#10 Panoptic Incident: XOR Linearity Breaks the Position Fingerprint Scheme

On August 29, 2025, Panoptic disclosed a Cantina bounty finding and confirmed that, with support from Cantina and Seal911, it executed a rescue operation on August 25 to secure roughly $400K in funds. The issue stemmed from a flaw in Panoptic’s position fingerprint calculation algorithm, which could have enabled incorrect position identification and downstream fund risk.