Bithumb EOS/XRP Hack: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
(Another 30 minutes complete. Additional sources merged in. Information moved around.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Case Study Under Construction}}{{Unattributed Sources}} | ||
{{Unattributed Sources}} | |||
[[File:Bithumb.jpg|thumb|Bithumb]]This hacking took place after a government security inspection by South Korea. EOS and Ripple tokens were taken from presumably insecure wallets. As is the typical case, this is yet another case where tokens were taken from a wallet without multi-sig. | [[File:Bithumb.jpg|thumb|Bithumb Website/Logo]]This hacking took place after a government security inspection by South Korea. EOS and Ripple tokens were taken from presumably insecure wallets. As is the typical case, this is yet another case where tokens were taken from a wallet without multi-sig. | ||
This exchange or platform is based in South Korea, or the incident targeted people primarily in South Korea.<ref name="coindesk-29" /><ref name="ciphertrace-99" /><ref name="cointelegraph-130 | This exchange or platform is based in South Korea, or the incident targeted people primarily in South Korea.<ref name="coindesk-29" /><ref name="ciphertrace-99" /><ref name="cointelegraph-130" /> | ||
== About Bithumb == | == About Bithumb == | ||
“Bithumb, South Korea’s largest crypto exchange platform | “Bithumb, South Korea’s largest crypto exchange platform" | ||
== The Reality == | == The Reality == | ||
| Line 37: | Line 17: | ||
== What Happened == | == What Happened == | ||
"was hit by hackers in March and lost about $19.2 million with EOS accounting for $13 million and about $6.2 million worth of XRP. | |||
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. | 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. | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| Line 43: | Line 25: | ||
!Event | !Event | ||
!Description | !Description | ||
|- | |||
|July 13th, 2018 2:05:39 PM MDT | |||
|YOUniversityTV Article About Exchanges | |||
|YOUniversityTV reports that the Korean Blockchain Association (KBA), a prominent self-regulatory body in the Korean cryptocurrency industry, is facing skepticism regarding its inspection standards and quality control. The organization recently conducted inspections of 12 local cryptocurrency exchanges, using third-party service providers to carry out the proceedings. Notably, the inspections did not include hacking simulations, a crucial aspect given the prevalent security concerns in the crypto space. Despite this, an unexpectedly high approval rate of 12 out of 14 exchanges was reported, meeting the industry standards set by the KBA. Chairman Jhun Hai-jin acknowledged security issues in some exchanges but affirmed that the approved platforms met the minimum acceptable standards. However, he refrained from disclosing specific cybersecurity risks to avoid leaving the exchanges vulnerable. The KBA had previously faced criticism for extending the inspection period and has been under scrutiny, especially after the recent hacking incident involving one of the approved exchanges, Bithumb, which lost $30 million in digital assets<ref name="youniversitytv-7677" />. | |||
|- | |- | ||
|March 1st, 2019 12:01:18 AM MST | |March 1st, 2019 12:01:18 AM MST | ||
| Line 48: | Line 34: | ||
|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. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |April 30th, 2019 | ||
| | |Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Inclusion | ||
| | |The incident gains inclusion into a list put together by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace<ref name="carnegieendowment-9983" />, labelled as "BitHumb Crypto Heist #4", noting it's "the fourth theft in two years" and that "[i]n August 2019, the UN Security Council Panel of Experts indicated DPRK-affiliated actors were behind the theft." | ||
|- | |||
|May 8th, 2019 6:27:07 AM MDT | |||
|Fintech Singapore Look Back | |||
|Fintech Singapore includes the Bithumb attack in their list of significant hacks, causing substantial financial losses and prompting concerns about security measures. In March of the same year, Bithumb, a Korean exchange, faced losses exceeding $13 million in EOS and $6 million in Ripple due to an insider-related accident. Other notable incidents include the Binance hack in May 2019, DragonEx losing $45 million, Cryptopia suffering an $18 million theft, and BitGrail's controversial hack involving around $195 million. The infamous Mt Gox hack in 2014 remains one of the largest, with around 850,000 bitcoins stolen, leading to the exchange's bankruptcy. The cumulative losses from these hacks in 2018 alone amounted to an estimated $867.45 million, underscoring the persistent challenges and risks within the cryptocurrency industry<ref name="fintechnews-164" />. | |||
|- | |||
|December 30th, 2019 5:00:00 PM MST | |||
|MyCrypto List Inclusion | |||
|The incident is included in a list of "Major Blockchain/Crypto Security Incidents" for 2019, published on the MyCrypto blog<ref name="mycryptoblog-10095" />. The listing includes only the $13M USD in EOS and does not mention anything about the XRP theft. | |||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 57: | Line 51: | ||
== Total Amount Lost == | == Total Amount Lost == | ||
"The company suspected that the operation was carried out by an insider because of what it described as an “abnormal withdrawal”. The company said all lost funds were owned by Bithumb and no users were affected.” | |||
The total amount lost has been estimated at $19,200,000 USD. | The total amount lost has been estimated at $19,200,000 USD. | ||
== Immediate Reactions == | == 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? | 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? | ||
"The company suspected that the operation was carried out by an insider because of what it described as an “abnormal withdrawal”. The company said all lost funds were owned by Bithumb and no users were affected.” | |||
== Ultimate Outcome == | == Ultimate Outcome == | ||
What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done? | What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done? | ||
In August 2019, the UN Security Council Panel of Experts indicated DPRK-affiliated actors were behind the theft.<ref name="carnegieendowment-9983" /> | |||
The incident was included in the CryptoXDirectory list of hacks on cryptocurrency exchanges in 2019<ref name="cryptoxdirectory-2276" />, SlowMist Hacked<ref name="slowmisthacked-1160" />, and the BitcoinExchangeGuide<ref name="bitcoinexchangeguide-218" />. | |||
== Total Amount Recovered == | == Total Amount Recovered == | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references><ref name="coindesk-29">[https://www.coindesk.com/upbit-is-the-sixth-major-crypto-exchange-hack-of-2019 Upbit Is the Seventh Major Crypto Exchange Hack of 2019 - CoinDesk] (Feb 4, 2020)</ref> | <references> | ||
<ref name="coindesk-29">[https://www.coindesk.com/upbit-is-the-sixth-major-crypto-exchange-hack-of-2019 Upbit Is the Seventh Major Crypto Exchange Hack of 2019 - CoinDesk] (Feb 4, 2020)</ref> | |||
<ref name="ciphertrace-99">[https://ciphertrace.com/articles/q1-2019-cryptocurrency-anti-money-laundering-report/ Q1 2019 Cryptocurrency Anti-Money Laundering Report - CipherTrace] (Feb 20, 2020)</ref> | <ref name="ciphertrace-99">[https://ciphertrace.com/articles/q1-2019-cryptocurrency-anti-money-laundering-report/ Q1 2019 Cryptocurrency Anti-Money Laundering Report - CipherTrace] (Feb 20, 2020)</ref> | ||
<ref name="cointelegraph-130">[https://cointelegraph.com/news/most-significant-hacks-of-2019-new-record-of-twelve-in-one-year Most Significant Hacks of 2019 — New Record of Twelve in One Year] (Feb 23, 2020)</ref> | <ref name="cointelegraph-130">[https://cointelegraph.com/news/most-significant-hacks-of-2019-new-record-of-twelve-in-one-year Most Significant Hacks of 2019 — New Record of Twelve in One Year] (Feb 23, 2020)</ref> | ||
<ref name="fintechnews-164">[https://fintechnews.sg/23594/blockchain/cryptocurrency-hack-binance/ A Look Back on Some of the Most Devastating Crypto Hacks - Fintech Singapore] (Feb 27, 2020)</ref> | |||
<ref name="fintechnews-164">[https://fintechnews.sg/23594/blockchain/cryptocurrency-hack-binance/ A Look Back on Some of the Most Devastating Crypto Hacks | <ref name="bitcoinexchangeguide-218">[https://web.archive.org/web/20200413134528/https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/bitcoin/scams-hacks/ Bitcoin Scams and Cryptocurrency Hacks List - BitcoinExchangeGuide Archive April 13th, 2020 7:45:28 AM MDT] (Mar 5, 2020)</ref> | ||
<ref name="bitcoinexchangeguide-218">[https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/bitcoin/scams-hacks/ Bitcoin Scams and Cryptocurrency Hacks List - BitcoinExchangeGuide | |||
<ref name="slowmisthacked-1160">[https://hacked.slowmist.io/en/?c=Exchange SlowMist Hacked - SlowMist Zone] (Jun 26, 2021)</ref> | <ref name="slowmisthacked-1160">[https://hacked.slowmist.io/en/?c=Exchange SlowMist Hacked - SlowMist Zone] (Jun 26, 2021)</ref> | ||
<ref name="cryptoxdirectory-2276">[https://cryptoxdirectory.com/hacked_2019 The 23 exchange hacks of 2019 - CryptoXDirectory] (Aug 8, 2021)</ref> | |||
<ref name="cryptoxdirectory-2276">[https://cryptoxdirectory.com/hacked_2019 The 23 exchange hacks of 2019] (Aug 8, 2021)</ref> | <ref name="youniversitytv-7677">[https://web.archive.org/web/20200801101113/https://www.youniversitytv.com/crypto-blockchain/korean-self-regulatory-crypto-industry-body-under-question-after-12-crypto-exchanges-approved/ Korean Self-regulatory Crypto Industry Body Under Question After 12 Crypto Exchanges Approved - YOUniversityTV Archive August 1st, 2020 4:11:13 AM MDT] (May 8, 2022)</ref> | ||
<ref name="youniversitytv-7677">[https://www.youniversitytv.com/crypto-blockchain/korean-self-regulatory-crypto-industry-body-under-question-after-12-crypto-exchanges-approved/ Korean Self-regulatory Crypto Industry Body Under Question After 12 Crypto Exchanges Approved | |||
<ref name="carnegieendowment-9983">[https://carnegieendowment.org/specialprojects/protectingfinancialstability/timeline Timeline of Cyber Incidents Involving Financial Institutions - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace] (Dec 12, 2022)</ref> | <ref name="carnegieendowment-9983">[https://carnegieendowment.org/specialprojects/protectingfinancialstability/timeline Timeline of Cyber Incidents Involving Financial Institutions - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace] (Dec 12, 2022)</ref> | ||
<ref name="mycryptoblog-10095">[https://blog.mycrypto.com/2019-in-review--major-blockchain-crypto-security-incidents 2019 In Review: Major Blockchain/Crypto Security Incidents - MyCrypto Blog] (Dec 28, 2022)</ref> | |||
<ref name="mycryptoblog-10095">[https://blog.mycrypto.com/2019-in-review--major-blockchain-crypto-security-incidents 2019 In Review: Major Blockchain/Crypto Security Incidents | </references> | ||
Latest revision as of 17:18, 29 November 2023
Notice: This page is a new case study and some aspects have not been fully researched. Some sections may be incomplete or reflect inaccuracies present in initial sources. Please check the References at the bottom for further information and perform your own additional assessment. Please feel free to contribute by adding any missing information or sources you come across. 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 hacking took place after a government security inspection by South Korea. EOS and Ripple tokens were taken from presumably insecure wallets. As is the typical case, this is yet another case where tokens were taken from a wallet without multi-sig.
This exchange or platform is based in South Korea, or the incident targeted people primarily in South Korea.[1][2][3]
About Bithumb
“Bithumb, South Korea’s largest crypto exchange platform"
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
"was hit by hackers in March and lost about $19.2 million with EOS accounting for $13 million and about $6.2 million worth of XRP.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| July 13th, 2018 2:05:39 PM MDT | YOUniversityTV Article About Exchanges | YOUniversityTV reports that the Korean Blockchain Association (KBA), a prominent self-regulatory body in the Korean cryptocurrency industry, is facing skepticism regarding its inspection standards and quality control. The organization recently conducted inspections of 12 local cryptocurrency exchanges, using third-party service providers to carry out the proceedings. Notably, the inspections did not include hacking simulations, a crucial aspect given the prevalent security concerns in the crypto space. Despite this, an unexpectedly high approval rate of 12 out of 14 exchanges was reported, meeting the industry standards set by the KBA. Chairman Jhun Hai-jin acknowledged security issues in some exchanges but affirmed that the approved platforms met the minimum acceptable standards. However, he refrained from disclosing specific cybersecurity risks to avoid leaving the exchanges vulnerable. The KBA had previously faced criticism for extending the inspection period and has been under scrutiny, especially after the recent hacking incident involving one of the approved exchanges, Bithumb, which lost $30 million in digital assets[4]. |
| March 1st, 2019 12:01:18 AM MST | Main Event | Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here. |
| April 30th, 2019 | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Inclusion | The incident gains inclusion into a list put together by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace[5], labelled as "BitHumb Crypto Heist #4", noting it's "the fourth theft in two years" and that "[i]n August 2019, the UN Security Council Panel of Experts indicated DPRK-affiliated actors were behind the theft." |
| May 8th, 2019 6:27:07 AM MDT | Fintech Singapore Look Back | Fintech Singapore includes the Bithumb attack in their list of significant hacks, causing substantial financial losses and prompting concerns about security measures. In March of the same year, Bithumb, a Korean exchange, faced losses exceeding $13 million in EOS and $6 million in Ripple due to an insider-related accident. Other notable incidents include the Binance hack in May 2019, DragonEx losing $45 million, Cryptopia suffering an $18 million theft, and BitGrail's controversial hack involving around $195 million. The infamous Mt Gox hack in 2014 remains one of the largest, with around 850,000 bitcoins stolen, leading to the exchange's bankruptcy. The cumulative losses from these hacks in 2018 alone amounted to an estimated $867.45 million, underscoring the persistent challenges and risks within the cryptocurrency industry[6]. |
| December 30th, 2019 5:00:00 PM MST | MyCrypto List Inclusion | The incident is included in a list of "Major Blockchain/Crypto Security Incidents" for 2019, published on the MyCrypto blog[7]. The listing includes only the $13M USD in EOS and does not mention anything about the XRP theft. |
Technical Details
This section includes specific detailed technical analysis of any security breaches which happened. What specific software vulnerabilities contributed to the problem and how were they exploited?
Total Amount Lost
"The company suspected that the operation was carried out by an insider because of what it described as an “abnormal withdrawal”. The company said all lost funds were owned by Bithumb and no users were affected.”
The total amount lost has been estimated at $19,200,000 USD.
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?
"The company suspected that the operation was carried out by an insider because of what it described as an “abnormal withdrawal”. The company said all lost funds were owned by Bithumb and no users were affected.”
Ultimate Outcome
What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?
In August 2019, the UN Security Council Panel of Experts indicated DPRK-affiliated actors were behind the theft.[5]
The incident was included in the CryptoXDirectory list of hacks on cryptocurrency exchanges in 2019[8], SlowMist Hacked[9], and the BitcoinExchangeGuide[10].
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.
References
- ↑ Upbit Is the Seventh Major Crypto Exchange Hack of 2019 - CoinDesk (Feb 4, 2020)
- ↑ Q1 2019 Cryptocurrency Anti-Money Laundering Report - CipherTrace (Feb 20, 2020)
- ↑ Most Significant Hacks of 2019 — New Record of Twelve in One Year (Feb 23, 2020)
- ↑ Korean Self-regulatory Crypto Industry Body Under Question After 12 Crypto Exchanges Approved - YOUniversityTV Archive August 1st, 2020 4:11:13 AM MDT (May 8, 2022)
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Timeline of Cyber Incidents Involving Financial Institutions - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Dec 12, 2022)
- ↑ A Look Back on Some of the Most Devastating Crypto Hacks - Fintech Singapore (Feb 27, 2020)
- ↑ 2019 In Review: Major Blockchain/Crypto Security Incidents - MyCrypto Blog (Dec 28, 2022)
- ↑ The 23 exchange hacks of 2019 - CryptoXDirectory (Aug 8, 2021)
- ↑ SlowMist Hacked - SlowMist Zone (Jun 26, 2021)
- ↑ Bitcoin Scams and Cryptocurrency Hacks List - BitcoinExchangeGuide Archive April 13th, 2020 7:45:28 AM MDT (Mar 5, 2020)