Slashdot Mirror
Hacker Steals $30 Million Worth of Ethereum From Parity Multi-Sig Wallets (bleepingcomputer.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bleeping Computer: An unknown hacker has used a vulnerability in an Ethereum wallet client to steal over 153,000 Ether, worth over $30 million dollars. The hack was possible due to a flaw in the Parity Ethereum client. The vulnerability allowed the hacker to exfiltrate funds from multi-sig wallets created with Parity clients 1.5 and later. Parity 1.5 was released on January 19, 2017. The attack took place around 19:00-20:00 UTC and was immediately spotted by Parity, a company founded by Gavin Wood, Ethereum's founder. The company issued a security alert on its blog. The Ether stolen from Parity multi-sig accounts was transferred into this Ethereum wallet, currently holding 153,017.021336727 Ether. Because Parity spotted the attack in time, a group named "The White Hat Group" used the same vulnerability to drain the rest of Ether stored in other Parity wallets that have not yet been stolen by the hacker. This money now resides in this Ethereum wallet. According to messages posted on Reddit and in a Gitter chat, The White Hat Group appears to be formed of security researchers and members of the Ethereum Project that have taken it into their own hands to secure funds in vulnerable wallets. Based on a message the group posted online, they plan to return the funds they took. Their wallet currently holds 377,116.819319439311671493 Ether, which is over $76 million.
Is all crypto currency over-valued when it is so frequently anonymously stolen?
It was not "stolen". Crypto-currencies are based on the implementing code, and the only "rules" are in the code. So if the code allowed someone to transfer ownership, then that transfer followed the "rules" and is just as legitimate as any other transfer. Just because some people misunderstood the rules, that doesn't make it "wrong" for someone else to follow them to their own advantage.
It was not "stolen". Crypto-currencies are based on the implementing code, and the only "rules" are in the code. So if the code allowed someone to transfer ownership, then that transfer followed the "rules" and is just as legitimate as any other transfer. Just because some people misunderstood the rules, that doesn't make it "wrong" for someone else to follow them to their own advantage.
Yes it was stolen. That is the legal and usual definition, taking without the owners' consent.
Your made up redefinition is complete bullshit.
taking without the owners' consent.
The owner is whoever the code says the owner is. Just because you thought you owned it, doesn't mean you do.
That's a consortium of various entities exploring applications for blockchains. The astute will note that the word "currency" occurs exactly nowhere on that page.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.