Four_meme遭受針對UNISWAP V3的流動性池的黑客攻擊，損失了$ 183K

Four_meme項目最近在加密貨幣領域遭受了嚴重破壞，估計損失了183,000美元。

Four_Meme project recently encountered a serious breach in the cryptocurrency space, leading to an estimated loss of $183,000. The attack targeted a vulnerability in the Uniswap V3 mechanism, which allows users to create liquidity pools and set prices in advance. The assailant exploited this oversight in a series of well-planned steps, ultimately causing significant financial damage to the project.

Four_meme項目最近在加密貨幣領域遇到了嚴重的違規行為，估計損失了183,000美元。該攻擊針對Uniswap V3機制中的脆弱性，該機制使用戶可以創建流動性池並提前設定價格。襲擊者通過一系列精心計劃的步驟利用了這一監督，最終造成了對該項目的重大財務損失。

How the Attack Unfolded

攻擊是如何展開的

The method of attack hinged on a flaw in the Four_Meme contract’s handling of liquidity and token prices. The project’s tokens were initially acquired by the attacker at a very low price. They were purchased before any liquidity was added to PancakeSwap, a decentralized exchange where our tokens trade. This gave the attacker two advantages. First, they obtained our tokens at a ridiculously low price. Second, had they held onto those tokens, they would have likely netted a much higher price after liquidity got added to the decentralized exchange.

攻擊方法取決於Four_meme合同處理流動性和代幣價格的缺陷。該項目的代幣最初是由攻擊者以非常低的價格收購的。它們是在將任何流動性添加到pancakeswap之前購買的，這是我們令牌貿易的分散交易所。這給了攻擊者兩個優勢。首先，他們以荒謬的價格獲得了我們的令牌。其次，如果他們抓住那些代幣，在將流動性添加到分散的交換中後，他們可能會淨價更高。

In the next step, the attack moved on to creating a trading pair pool on PancakeSwap in a preemptive way. The attacker took the low-price tokens and paired them with WBNB (Wrapped Binance Coin). Yet there was one important detail in this step: the price of the token was set at an extraordinarily high rate. This price manipulation was not an oversight. It was a calculated move that took advantage of the way Uniswap V3 allows for the creation of liquidity pools at predetermined prices.

在下一步中，攻擊以先發製人的方式在pancakeswap上創建一個交易對池。攻擊者將低價代幣與WBNB（包裹的binance硬幣）配對。然而，此步驟有一個重要的細節：令牌的價格以極高的速度設定。這種價格操縱不是監督。這是一個計算出的舉動，它利用了Uniswap V3允許以預定價格創建流動性池的方式。

Once they had set up the costly trading pair, the attacker bided their time and let the project in question launch. When the liquidity was injected into the PancakeSwap pool, the attacker struck. Using a bot, they added more liquidity to the pool, but at a much higher price, thus pushing the price of the token higher, and we do mean much higher.

一旦建立了昂貴的交易對，攻擊者就會浪費時間，並讓該項目啟動。當將流動性注入煎餅庫池中時，攻擊者襲擊了。使用機器人，他們為池中增加了更多的流動性，但價格更高，從而提高了代幣的價格，我們的意思確實更高。

The last part of the step was when the attacker disposed of the tokens they had acquired at the low price, now at the inflated price they had set earlier. They sold off the tokens and profited substantially from the difference between the low acquisition price and the inflated sale price.

步驟的最後一部分是，攻擊者以低價獲取了他們獲得的代幣，現在以較早的價格誇大了。他們賣掉了代幣，並從低獲取價格和膨脹銷售價格之間的差額中獲得了大量利潤。

Exploiting the Uniswap V3 Mechanism

利用UNISWAP V3機制

This attack was directed at the Uniswap V3 protocol and how it operates. Uniswap V3 provides a nifty feature that allows liquidity providers (LPs) to specify custom price ranges for the pools they’re providing liquidity to. This is good and well, as it allows LPs to concentrate their capital in the price ranges that are most conducive to their business. However, this feature also allows an LP with bad intentions (like our friend “0x8aa”) to create a price range that’s super conducive to hoodwinking token buyers and sellers—to create a setup that allows them to peg a token price at some artificial range, for instance.

此攻擊針對UNISWAP V3協議及其運作方式。 UNISWAP V3提供了一個漂亮的功能，可允許流動性提供商（LP）指定他們提供流動性的游泳池的自定義價格範圍。這很好，而且很好，因為它允許LP將其資本集中在最有利於其業務的價格範圍內。但是，此功能還允許具有不良意圖的LP（例如我們的朋友“ 0x8AA”）創建一個非常有利於蒙受欺騙的代幣買家和賣家的價格範圍，可以創建一個設置，使他們可以在某些人造範圍內將其銷售， 例如。

In this instance, the mechanism was fully exploited by the attacker, who set up a not-so-simple scenario that artfully created a token price that was totally inflated. The price was artificially pumped up—via a setup that was not quite as simple as it seemed—before any of the project’s liquidity was made available. By the time the actual liquidity was added and the price “settled,” the attackers had already made off with profits amounting to 100 percent of the artificially boosted price of the token.

在這種情況下，攻擊者完全利用了該機制，後者建立了一種不太簡單的情況，該場景巧妙地創造了一個完全誇大的代價價格。價格是人為地泵起來的 - VIA的設置不像看起來那樣簡單的設置 - 在任何項目的流動性都可以使用之前。到添加實際流動性並且價格“達成和解”時，攻擊者已經以利潤為代幣人為提高價格的100％。

This attack type is especially worrisome for projects and investors, revealing design and implementation weaknesses in liquidity pools on decentralized exchanges such as PancakeSwap. These platforms may allow for decentralized trading opportunities, but they also present new risks, especially when the protocols that underlie them fail to mitigate the possibility of price manipulation.

這種攻擊類型對於項目和投資者來說尤其令人擔憂，揭示了分散的交流（例如PancakesWap）在流動性池中的設計和實施弱點。這些平台可能允許分散的交易機會，但它們也帶來了新的風險，尤其是當其基礎協議無法減輕價格操縱的可能性時。

Four_Meme Attack Highlights DeFi Vulnerabilities

four_meme攻擊突出顯示defi漏洞

The Four_Meme attack is not an isolated incident but part of a larger trend in which decentralized protocols are being targeted for financial gain. As DeFi platforms achieve greater traction, they have become enticing targets for malicious actors who are looking to exploit any vulnerability, whether that be a smart contract, liquidity pool setup, or price setting mechanism.

Four_meme攻擊不是一個孤立的事件，而是一個更大趨勢的一部分，在該趨勢中，分散協議的目標是為了經濟利益。隨著Defi平台獲得更大的吸引力，他們已成為希望利用任何漏洞的惡意行為者的誘人目標，無論是智能合約，流動性池設置還是價格設定機制。

The Four_Meme team could take the recent attack on their project’s smart contract as a wake-up call to rethink not just their management of liquidity pools but also, and more importantly, their security protocols in general. If the smart contract for a project can be hacked, then the project itself can be said to have a security hole as large as the one in the National Security Agency’s Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters that was famously penetrated by a couple of high school kids in 1999.

Four_meme團隊可以將最近對項目的智能合約的攻擊作為喚醒呼籲，不僅重新考慮他們對流動性池的管理，而且更重要的是，他們的安全協議總體上。如果可以將項目的智能合同被黑客入侵，那麼可以說該項目的安全漏洞與國家安全局米德堡（Maryland）的米德堡（Fort Meade）中的總部一樣大，該總部被幾個高中生滲透了1999年。

The DeFi space keeps evolving, and projects and investors alike need to be on their toes regarding the potential system vulnerabilities. The Four_Meme attack serves as a costly reminder that a single misstep in managing liquidity and price settings can yield significant losses. This incident also underscores that, in the fast-moving world of cryptocurrency, security must always be front of mind and never an afterthought.

Defi空間不斷發展，項目和投資者都需要在潛在系統脆弱性方面掌握其腳趾。 Four_meme攻擊是一個昂貴的提醒，即管理流動性和價格設置的單個失誤可以造成巨大的損失。這一事件還強調了，在加密貨幣的快速發展世界中，安全必須始終是頭腦的，並且永遠不會是事後的想法。