796 Exchange Hack: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Imported Case Study|source=https://www.quadrigainitiative.com/casestudy/796exchangehack.php}} | {{Imported Case Study 2|source=https://www.quadrigainitiative.com/casestudy/796exchangehack.php}} | ||
{{Unattributed | {{Unattributed Sources}} | ||
This is an unusual case, where the hacker exploited vulnerabilities in the exchange to tamper with the withdrawal address of a customer. The customer legitimately requested the withdrawal and failed to notice the changed address. “796” appears to have handled this well, and the situation was quickly made right. No other customers appear to have been affected. It is suggested that all large withdrawals must be tested before completion. | This is an unusual case, where the hacker exploited vulnerabilities in the exchange to tamper with the withdrawal address of a customer. The customer legitimately requested the withdrawal and failed to notice the changed address. “796” appears to have handled this well, and the situation was quickly made right. No other customers appear to have been affected. It is suggested that all large withdrawals must be tested before completion. | ||
This exchange or platform is based in China, or the incident targeted people primarily in China. | This exchange or platform is based in China, or the incident targeted people primarily in China.<ref name="kylegibson-86" /><ref name="bitcoinexchangeguide-218" /> | ||
<ref name="kylegibson-86" /><ref name="bitcoinexchangeguide-218" /> | |||
== About 796 Exchange == | == About 796 Exchange == | ||
| Line 45: | Line 44: | ||
!Description | !Description | ||
|- | |- | ||
|January 1st, 2015 12:00:37 AM | |January 1st, 2015 12:00:37 AM MST | ||
|Main Event | |Main Event | ||
|Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here. | |Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here. | ||
| Line 72: | Line 71: | ||
== Ongoing Developments == | == Ongoing Developments == | ||
What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded? | What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded? | ||
== General Prevention Policies == | |||
Coming soon. | |||
== Individual Prevention Policies == | |||
{{Prevention:Individuals:Placeholder}} | |||
{{Prevention:Individuals:End}} | |||
== Prevention Policies == | == Platform Prevention Policies == | ||
{{Prevention:Platforms:Placeholder}} | |||
{{Prevention:Platforms:End}} | |||
== Regulatory Prevention Policies == | |||
{{Prevention:Regulators:Placeholder}} | |||
{{Prevention:Regulators:End}} | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 17:58, 12 April 2023
Notice: This page is a freshly imported case study from the original repository. The original content was in a different format, and may not have relevant information for all sections. Please help restructure the content by moving information from the 'About' and 'General Prevention' sections to other sections, and add any missing information or sources you can find. If you are new here, please read General Tutorial on Wikis or Anatomy of a Case Study for help getting started.
Notice: This page contains sources which are not attributed to any text. The unattributed sources follow the initial description. Please assist by visiting each source, reviewing the content, and placing that reference next to any text it can be used to support. Feel free to add any information that you come across which isn't present already. Sources which don't contain any relevant information can be removed. Broken links can be replaced with versions from the Internet Archive. See General Tutorial on Wikis, Anatomy of a Case Study, and/or Citing Your Sources Guide for additional information. Thanks for your help!
This is an unusual case, where the hacker exploited vulnerabilities in the exchange to tamper with the withdrawal address of a customer. The customer legitimately requested the withdrawal and failed to notice the changed address. “796” appears to have handled this well, and the situation was quickly made right. No other customers appear to have been affected. It is suggested that all large withdrawals must be tested before completion.
This exchange or platform is based in China, or the incident targeted people primarily in China.[1][2]
About 796 Exchange
"According to the explanation, hackers had compromised areas of the exchange in the previous days, which had caused a user “to mention the current address has been tampered with, coupled with hackers deliberately [using] a similar address with the original withdrawals address to confuse users…”
This exchange or platform is based in China, or the incident targeted people primarily in China.
The background of the exchange platform, service, or individuals involved, as it would have been seen or understood at the time of the events.
Include:
- Known history of when and how the service was started.
- What problems does the company or service claim to solve?
- What marketing materials were used by the firm or business?
- Audits performed, and excerpts that may have been included.
- Business registration documents shown (fake or legitimate).
- How were people recruited to participate?
- Public warnings and announcements prior to the event.
Don't Include:
- Any wording which directly states or implies that the business is/was illegitimate, or that a vulnerability existed.
- Anything that wasn't reasonably knowable at the time of the event.
There could be more than one section here. If the same platform is involved with multiple incidents, then it can be linked to a main article page.
The Reality
This sections is included if a case involved deception or information that was unknown at the time. Examples include:
- When the service was actually started (if different than the "official story").
- Who actually ran a service and their own personal history.
- How the service was structured behind the scenes. (For example, there was no "trading bot".)
- Details of what audits reported and how vulnerabilities were missed during auditing.
What Happened
The specific events of the loss and how it came about. What actually happened to cause the loss and some of the events leading up to it.
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| January 1st, 2015 12:00:37 AM MST | Main Event | Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here. |
Total Amount Lost
The total amount lost has been estimated at $230,000 USD.
How much was lost and how was it calculated? If there are conflicting reports, which are accurate and where does the discrepancy lie?
Immediate Reactions
How did the various parties involved (firm, platform, management, and/or affected individual(s)) deal with the events? Were services shut down? Were announcements made? Were groups formed?
Ultimate Outcome
What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?
Total Amount Recovered
There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.
What funds were recovered? What funds were reimbursed for those affected users?
Ongoing Developments
What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded?
General Prevention Policies
Coming soon.
Individual Prevention Policies
No specific policies for individual prevention have yet been identified in this case.
For the full list of how to protect your funds as an individual, check our Prevention Policies for Individuals guide.
Platform Prevention Policies
Policies for platforms to take to prevent this situation have not yet been selected in this case.
For the full list of how to protect your funds as a financial service, check our Prevention Policies for Platforms guide.
Regulatory Prevention Policies
No specific regulatory policies have yet been identified in this case.
For the full list of regulatory policies that can prevent loss, check our Prevention Policies for Regulators guide.