Wintermute inside job theory ‘not convincing enough’ — BlockSec

The theory is “not convincing enough to accuse the Wintermute project,” wrote BlockSec, because it highlighted that Wintermute’s actions throughout the hack created sense given the circumstances.

Blockchain security firm BlockSec has debunked a conspiracy theory alleging the $160 million Wintermute hack was an internal job, noting that the proof used for allegations is “not convincing enough.”

Earlier in the week cyber sleuth James Edwards printed a report alleging that the Wintermute contract exploit was doubtless conducted by somebody within data of the firm, questioning activity regarding the compromised sensible contract and 2 stablecoin transactions especially.

BlockSec has since gone over the claims during a wednesday post on Medium, suggesting that the “accusation of the Wintermute project isn’t as solid because the author claimed,” adding during a Tweet:

“Our analysis shows that the report isn’t convincing enough to accuse the Wintermute project.”

In Edward’s original post, he focused on how the hacker was able to enact most slaying on the exploited Wintermute smart contract that “supposedly had admin access,” despite showing no proof of getting admin capabilities throughout his analysis.

BlockSec but promptly debunked the claims, because it printed that “the report simply researched this state of the account within the mapping variable _setCommonAdmin, however, it’s not affordable as a result of the project might take actions to revoke the admin privilege when knowing the attack.”

It pointed to Etherscan dealing details that showed that Wintermute had removed admin privileges once it became aware of the hack.

Edwards additionally questioned the explanations why Wintermute had $13 million price of Tether (USDT) transferred from 2 or their accounts on 2 completely different exchanges to their sensible contract simply 2 minutes when it absolutely was compromised, suggesting it absolutely was evil.

Addressing this, BlockSec argued that this is often not as suspicious as it seems, because the hacker may observe Wintermute transferring transactions, probably via bots, to swoop in there.

“However, it’s not as plausible as it claimed. The offender may monitor the activity of the transferring transactions to achieve the goal. It’s roughly weird from a technical point of reading. as an example, there exist some on-chain MEV-bots that unendingly monitor the transactions to form profits.”

As before explicit in the initial article on the matter, Wintermute has powerfully refuted Edwards claims, and has declared that his methodology is packed with inaccuracies.