Supply-Chain Attack on Signing Infrastructure
Treat this as a reported explanation to test against code, traces, transaction data, and other primary evidence.
Preparing your view
Checking the session, access policy, and current workspace data.
Checking the session, access policy, and current workspace data.
Supply-Chain Attack on Signing Infrastructure
Attackers compromised the Safe{Wallet} front-end via a supply-chain attack on Bybit's multi-sig signing infrastructure, draining ~$1.46 billion in ETH and stETH.
Imported-record overview
These fields reproduce or normalize claims in an imported research record. “Reported” describes provenance; it does not mean ChainRadar has confirmed the claim.
Treat this as a reported explanation to test against code, traces, transaction data, and other primary evidence.
Date-free learning path
Synthetic study sequence for learning purposes; timestamps and ordering may not reproduce the full verified incident chronology. Synthetic dates are deliberately omitted below.
STUDY PHASE
STUDY PHASE
fetch(s3_bundle_url)eval(patched_bundle)STUDY PHASE
Safe.approveHash(txHash)Safe.execTransaction()STUDY PHASE
SafeProxy.upgradeTo(maliciousImpl)STUDY PHASE
maliciousImpl.sweepAll(attacker)STUDY PHASE
Teaching model
Educational reconstruction intended to explain the reported attack pattern, not a transaction-level evidentiary trace.
Start at Stage 1 and follow the numbered arrows. Every label is derived from the imported flow actions and structure.
Values describe reported movement between stages. Repeated amounts are not additional losses.
| Step | From | To | Reported action | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | ETH/StETH Held | Bybit system | ETH/StETH Held | $1.46B |
| 02 | Bybit system | Obfuscation route · Stage 3 | SweepAll() | $1.46B |
| 03 | Obfuscation route · Stage 3 | Obfuscation route · Stage 4 | Obfuscation | $1.46B |
| 04 | Obfuscation route · Stage 4 | Routed assets | Dispersed | $1.46B |
Imported indicators
Contract entries are reproduced from the local research archive. Confirm chain, bytecode, ownership, and incident relevance against primary evidence before using them in an investigation.
0x1Db92e2EeBC8E0c075a02BeA49a2935BcD2dFCF40x96221423681A6d52E184D440a8eFCEbB105C7242Defensive prompts
These imported mitigation labels are study prompts, not a complete or validated remediation plan. Test them against the protocol's actual architecture and failure mode.
Investigator workflow
Turn this background study into questions for a separate, evidence-led investigation. Never promote an educational edge or imported label into a finding without corroboration.
Preserve official disclosures, on-chain transactions, code, retrieval times, and other evidence supporting each material claim.
Start from corroborated addresses or transactions and trace each hop without assuming the educational flow is exact.
Compare decoded calls, logs, bytecode, and state changes with the reported cause.
Record provenance for every claim and identify gaps that still require confirmation.
Source status: cataloged. Classification: educational. Risk methodology: heuristic only. Primary-source verification remains required for every material claim.