Salus says Revenue involved malicious authorization; attackers used permit signatures to steal USDG assets
BIBIBI
AT A GLANCE
Salus said that attackers used permit signatures to transfer users’USDG and split the funds between two addresses.
Article
⚡️Security firm Salus: Revenue involved malicious authorization; attackers used permit signatures to steal assets
BlockBeats reports that October 5, security firm Salus said that Revenue involved malicious authorization. Attackers submitted users’ permit signatures to obtain unlimited spending permission for their USDG and then immediately called transferFrom. The authorization and fund transfer were completed in the same transaction, draining users’ wallets. The funds were subsequently split between two hacker addresses in the proportions of 20%and 80%.
The report said that this distribution structure resembles Inferno’s drainer-as-a-service model, while its promotion method is consistent with FomoPeek’s use of KOL to carry out scams.
Public information shows that Revenue provides an exit channel for X Money. Users can convert funds into cryptocurrency or send cryptocurrency into X Money without KYC.
Original link https://m.theblockbeats.info/flash/370252
Key points
01
Salus said that Revenue involved malicious authorization.
02
Attackers submitted users’ permit signatures to obtain unlimited spending permission for their USDG and then called transferFrom.
03
The authorization and fund transfer were completed in the same transaction, and the funds were subsequently split in the proportions of 20%and 80%between two hacker addresses.
04
The report said that this distribution structure resembles Inferno’s drainer-as-a-service model.
05
Public information shows that Revenue provides an exit channel for X Money, allowing users to convert or send cryptocurrency without KYC。
AI-assisted interpretation
The following is analysis, separate from reported facts. Verify important claims independently.
A permit signature can authorize a contract to spend assets on a user’s behalf. The article says that attackers used the signature to obtain USDG unlimited spending permission and transfer assets in the same transaction.
Why it matters to readers
If the allegations are true, users’USDG may be transferred without authorization, raising concerns about the security of Revenue and its X Money channel.
Beginners should understand: do not sign permit authorizations casually; a signature may allow a contract to transfer assets on your behalf.
Risks and unknowns
The current materials do not provide verification of on-chain transactions, the affected signatures, or the two receiving addresses.
No official response from Revenue or X Money has been identified.
Based solely on these materials, it cannot yet be confirmed that the attack was carried out by a Revenue-related contract.
It was not stated whether users’ assets have been recovered or the relevant authorizations revoked.
Related Developments
Loading event timeline…
Related concepts
permit Signature
This term is not in the glossary yet. Browse related concepts in the glossary.
