BankX, Idols NFT, and Mosca Exploited for $403K via Reentrancy, Double Rewards, and Reward Reset Bugs
BankX lost $43K from a reentrancy flaw that let attackers burn tokens mid-swap and game the price. Idols NFT leaked $340K due to a double reward logic triggered by same-address transfers. Mosca’s flawed state reset let attackers drain rewards by preserving USDT and USDC balances between cycles.
In Brief
BankX was targeted in a $43K reentrancy attack.
Idols NFT suffered a $340K loss due to a double reward flaw.
Mosca lost $19.5K due to a logic vulnerability.
Hacks Analysis
BankX | Amount Lost: $183K
On February 8, the BankX hack on the Binance Smart Chain led to a $43K loss. The root cause of the exploit was that the swapXSDForETH() function of the Router contract was missing reentrancy safeguards. The attacker initiated a swap, sending XSD tokens to the pool for ETH. The function made an external call to IXSDWETHpool.swap before updating the state. This allowed the attacker to call the function repeatedly. Each call triggered burnpoolXSD, burning excess XSD tokens. The reduced supply inflated the token price. The attacker then sold the XSD at the higher manipulated price for profit.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Exploited Contract (on BSC): 0xaadae9117df8b5d584378a41a105cc4862a16e99
On January 15th, the Idols NFT exploit on the Ethereum mainnet resulted in a $340K loss due to a flaw in the _beforeTokenTransfer() function. The attacker transferred NFTs to themselves in repeated transfers (same ‘from’ and ‘to’ address). Each transfer triggered reward payments twice: once for the sender, then again for the receiver. The function then erased the sender’s reward history after the first payment, making the second payment calculate rewards as if none were claimed. This allowed the attacker to collect rewards twice per transfer.
On January 8th, the Mosca exploit on the Binance Smart Chain resulted in a $19.5K loss. The root cause of the exploit was a logic vulnerability in the exitProgram() function which calculates rewards in withdrawAll() function by summing user.balance, user.balanceUSDT, and user.balanceUSDC, then transfers the total. However, exitProgram() only clears user.balance, leaving USDT and USDC balances unchanged. Using flash loans, the attacker triggered the buy() function to inflate their rewards. By repeatedly calling join() and exitProgram(), the attacker withdrew the full reward amount each time, including the nonzero USDT and USDC balances.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Exploited Contract (on BSC): 0x1962b3356122d6a56f978e112d14f5e23a25037d
The rich text element allows you to create and format headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, images, and video all in one place instead of having to add and format them individually. Just double-click and easily create content.
A rich text element can be used with static or dynamic content. For static content, just drop it into any page and begin editing. For dynamic content, add a rich text field to any collection and then connect a rich text element to that field in the settings panel. Voila!
Headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, figures, images, and figure captions can all be styled after a class is added to the rich text element using the "When inside of" nested selector system.
Follow-up: Conduct a follow-up review to ensure that the remediation steps were effective and that the smart contract is now secure.
Follow-up: Conduct a follow-up review to ensure that the remediation steps were effective and that the smart contract is now secure.
In Brief
Remitano suffered a $2.7M loss due to a private key compromise.
GAMBL’s recommendation system was exploited.
DAppSocial lost $530K due to a logic vulnerability.
Rocketswap’s private keys were inadvertently deployed on the server.
Hacks
Hacks Analysis
Huobi | Amount Lost: $8M
On September 24th, the Huobi Global exploit on the Ethereum Mainnet resulted in a $8 million loss due to the compromise of private keys. The attacker executed the attack in a single transaction by sending 4,999 ETH to a malicious contract. The attacker then created a second malicious contract and transferred 1,001 ETH to this new contract. Huobi has since confirmed that they have identified the attacker and has extended an offer of a 5% white hat bounty reward if the funds are returned to the exchange.
