Get the Crypto Payment Security & Compliance Playbook
Back to Blog

The Analysis of the Sanshu Inu Security Incident

Code Auditing
July 21, 2021

On July 21st, our DeFiRanger system reported a couple of suspicious transactions. After manual analysis, we confirm that these transactions are attacks to Sanshu Inu. Specifically, the Memstake contract of Sanshu Inu was attacked by abusing the deflation mechanism. In the following, we will use multiple attack transactions to illustrate the attack process.

Attack Flow

The following figure lists some of the transactions launched by the attacker (0x333).

The attack consists of four steps. The critical one is the second step, which leverages the deflation mechanism of the ERC20 token to manipulate the reward calculation of the Memstake smart contract.

  • Step 1 (preparation): The attacker creates two attack contracts. The first one is a contract that deposits 2,049B KEANU. The second one is the attack contract.

  • step 2 (manipulation): the attacker first borrows a large number of KEANU tokens using the flash loan (Towards A First Step to Understand Flash Loan and Its Applications in DeFi Ecosystem (SBC 2021)) from uniswapV2, and then deposits the tokens into/withdraws from the Memestake using the second smart contract created in step 1. Since the KEANU has a deflation mechanism, which burns 2% tokens for each transaction, the real number of tokens deposited into the Memestake is smaller than the value (user.amount) maintained by the Memestake contract. The attacker repeats this process and makes the number of KEANU tokens inside the Memestake decrease to a small one (1e-07). See the transaction 0x00ed and the following figure.

  • Step 3 (making profit): The attacker invokes the Memestake.updatePool() to update the accMfundPerShare. This value relies on the number of KEANU tokens (which was manipulated in the second step.) Then the attacker obtains a large number of Mfund(~61M). See the transaction 0xa945 for more details.
  • Step 4 (swapping to WETH): The attacker swaps the MFund and KEANU to WETH and launder the money through Tornado.Cash. The attacker gained 55.9484578158357 ETH as profits.

MISC

Interestingly, the second/third step of the attack is related to Flashbots. The second step buys KEANU with 38 ETH (0x00ed). This transaction is attacked by a sandwidth attack (through Flashbots) -- which makes the attacker himself a victim of a sandwidth attack. The third step (0xa945) sells MFund in uniswap, which creates an arbitrage opportunity that was captured by a Flashbots searcher.

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
~$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