pull down to refresh

6 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 17h
your logic is about a hypothetical attacker who is currently authoring malware
my logic was about backing up my assumption that it swaps before signing because I did not read the malware code
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @adlai 17h
half the bloody problem is that there is too much code. I think it's been this way for longer than NASDAQ, although I'm younger.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 17h
wdym with "payload might not include exfil"?
if an attacker can sign whatever they want, why wouldn't they drain the wallet?
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @adlai 17h
I have not read any of the theft complaints. I have no idea how anything signed leaves the browser.
reply
5 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 17h
the malware swaps the address. so when you sign without double-checking the address, you're actually signing a tx to the attacker. you're then broadcasting that tx like you would normally. that's how anything signed leaves the browser or wallet.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @adlai 17h
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 17h
yes, which is what I said because the malware has to swap the address before you sign
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @adlai 17h
the details of my criticism depend on the UX of the target attacked by the payload. by my understanding, if the payload only detects and swaps addresses, then our entire discussion is the real scam, donating our sats to the rest of the community.
reply