Back to Blog

The Real Root Cause of the Vee Finance Security Incident

Code Auditing
September 22, 2021

VEE finance has released a report about the recent security incident. In the report, they state that the main cause is “Manipulating the price of the Vee Finance oracle machine and the acquisition of the oracle machine price were not processed for decimals, resulting in the expected slippage check before the swap did not work.”

“The main cause of the accident was that in the process of creating an order for leveraged trading, only the price of the Pangolin pool was used by the oracle as the source of price feed, and the pool price fluctuated more than 3%. The oracle refreshed the price, causing the attacker to manipulate the price of the Pangolin pool. Manipulating the price of the Vee Finance oracle machine and the acquisition of the oracle machine price were not processed for decimals, resulting in the expected slippage check before the swap did not work.” — quoted from the report released by VEE finance.

However, after our careful investigation, we find this may NOT be the case. The real reason is that the attacker creates a FAKE ctokenB and passes to the contract. Since the ctokenB is controlled by the attacker, it can return an arbitrary underlying token that is used for calculating the token price. This is the real root cause of the attack.

The Whole Process

There is an external function called createOrderERC20ToERC20 that can be invoked by any users to create a token swap, using the ctoken obtained through putting the collateral into the contract. The ctoken has an underlying token that represents the real token.

In a normal case, when invoking thecreateOrderERC20ToERC20 to trade a token pair using leverage, the dapp needs to ensure that the trade cannot make any loss (otherwise, the dapp will lose money). This is enforced by invoking the getAmountOutMin function.

Say we put 0.95 ETH into the dapp and get a ctoken that worths 0.5 ETH (Overcollateralization). Then we can use use the 3x leverage to ask the dapp to trade 1.5 ETH for another token (say tokenX), on behalf of the user. In this case, to prevent the loss, the dapp needs to ensure that the value of the traded tokenX cannot be under 0.95* 1.5ETH (otherwise, the dapp has the risk to lose money). The dapp leverages an external price oracle to calculate the value of ETH and tokenX.

However, the function createOrderERC20ToERC20 does not validate the passedctokenB. Thus, the attacker could implement his/her own contract as a ctokenB and feed it to the function createOrderERC20ToERC20. As a result, this fake ctokenB can return the underlying token as LINK (0x5947bb275c521040051d82396192181b413227a3) when being invoked in createOrderERC20ToERC20 and getAmountOutMin, but return the underlying token as BTC when being invoked in IPriceOracle(oracle).getUnderlyingPrice(createParams.ctokenB). Thus it can bypass the check isRightPrice — since the token used to calculate the price is BTC (instead of LINK). This can be confirmed by the returned value of the priceB — 0x15e1549d1216fe9fc032e7c00000 (443783124870000000000000000000000). This is the price of BTC.

Conclusion

In summary, the attacker exploits the missing check of the ctokenB. Since the ctokenB is not a trusted one, then the underlying token returned by ctokenB cannot be trusted. However, the price oracle has NOT been compromised in this attack.

Takeaway

Making a DeFi project secure is not an easy job. Besides the code audit, we think the community should take a proactive method to monitor the project status, and block the attack before it even takes place.

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
Beyond Secure Storage, Part 1: Designing Secure Payment and Signing Workflows
Security Insights

Beyond Secure Storage, Part 1: Designing Secure Payment and Signing Workflows

How can an unauthorized operation obtain a valid signature without the attacker stealing the private key? Part 1 of Beyond Secure Storage uses incidents including Bitget, Bybit and Binance to examine authorization failures across payment requests, transaction construction, signing, execution and settlement. It derives design principles for preventing unauthorized operations and limiting losses, then explains how reviews, audits, penetration tests and exercises can verify those protections.

NEAR Intents Exploit: Refund Flaw and Security Lessons
Security Insights

NEAR Intents Exploit: Refund Flaw and Security Lessons

The NEAR Intents exploit used oversized refund events to preserve internal balances after the deposited assets were returned. This analysis reconstructs the receipt flow and seven BNB Chain withdrawals totaling 3,865,021 USDT, distinguishes those outflows from the project's reported full recovery, and outlines security considerations for developing and auditing NEAR smart contracts.

~$5.57M Lost: X100 Freezer, NEM Exploits | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$5.57M Lost: X100 Freezer, NEM Exploits | BlockSec Weekly

This weekly report covers two security incidents on Ethereum and BNB Chain from October 19 to October 25, 2026. It examines a flash-loan-funded governance takeover of X100 Freezer and a tax-settlement flaw affecting a NEM token liquidity pool on BNB Chain. Estimated losses within the report's scope total approximately $5.57M: ~$4.75M from the representative X100 transaction and ~$820K from the NEM pool incident. The total excludes separately reported follow-on X100 extractions.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

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

BlockSec Audit
The Real Root Cause of the Vee Finance Security Incident