Back to Blog

The Short Analysis of the Flashloan Attack to the APE AirDrop

Code Auditing
March 17, 2022
(pic is from The creators of Bored Ape Yacht Club unveil ApeCoin crypto token (lifestyleasia.com))
(pic is from The creators of Bored Ape Yacht Club unveil ApeCoin crypto token (lifestyleasia.com))

As reported by Will Sheehan, the APE token has been attacked by the MEVor. After the analysis, we think it's due to the vulnerability that the AirDrop process of the APE token only consider the spot state, which can be manipulated by the attacker.

In particular, the attacker can borrow BYAC tokens that can be redeemed to NFTs, and then use these NFTs to claim the AirDrop. After that, the attacker mint the BYAC tokens using the BYAC NFTs to return the flashloan. However, the attacker got the AirDrop APE tokens through this process. We think this is similar to the flash loan based price manipulation attack, where a contract only consider the spot price of an asset (which can be manipulated.)

In the following, we will use the attack transaction to illustrate this process.

Step I: prepare the NFT for the fee of the flashloan

The attacker transferred 1060 NFT to the attack contract 0x7797. Note that, this NFT is not borrowed from the flashloan, but is brought with 106 ETH.

Step II: Borrow the BYAC tokens through flashloan

Step III: Use the NFT to claim the APE tokens

Note that, during this process, the attacker has six NFTs. One is the 1060 he/she bought, and five ones that are redeemed using the borrowed BYAC tokens (in step II). In total, it gets 60,564 APE tokens.

Step IV: Mint the NFT to get BYAC tokens

The attacker minted the six NFTs to get the BYAC tokens. Note that, the attacker also minted his own NFT (1060) to pay the fees for flash loan. Since there are still BYAC tokens remained after paying back the flash loan (since he minted his own BYAC NFT 1060), the attacker swapped the remaining BYAC tokens for around 14 ETH.

Profit

In total, the attacker got 60,564 APE token, which worthed around 5M USD (at the time of writing this blog). The cost is one NFT (106 ETH - 14 ETH), which is around 270K USD.

Lessons

We think the issue here is that the AirDrop of APE token only considers the spot state that whether NFTs are hold by someone. This is fragile since the attacker can manipulate the spot state using flashloan. If the cost of the flashloan is smaller than the value of the AirDrop token, then it creates an attack opportunity that has shown in the attack.

Credit

Credit to Will Sheehan, who reported the transaction.

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