DeFi 借貸協議 Cream finance 遭駭事件分析

# 事件簡介

2021 年 10 月 27 日,借貸協議 Cream fiancne 遭到閃電貸攻擊,損失高達 1.3 億美金。

twitter

來源:Twitter

# 漏洞分析

在借款時主要會被呼叫到的函式為 borrowFresh,在開頭就會先檢查是否符合借款資格:

function borrowFresh(
address payable borrower,
uint256 borrowAmount,
bool isNative
) internal returns (uint256) {
/* Fail if borrow not allowed */
require(comptroller.borrowAllowed(address(this), borrower, borrowAmount) == 0, "comptroller rejection");
// ...
}

borrowAllowed 中,會再呼叫另一個函式 getHypotheticalAccountLiquidityInternal

/**
* @notice Checks if the account should be allowed to borrow the underlying asset of the given market
* @param cToken The market to verify the borrow against
* @param borrower The account which would borrow the asset
* @param borrowAmount The amount of underlying the account would borrow
* @return 0 if the borrow is allowed, otherwise a semi-opaque error code (See ErrorReporter.sol)
*/

function borrowAllowed(
address cToken,
address borrower,
uint256 borrowAmount
) external returns (uint256) {
// Pausing is a very serious situation - we revert to sound the alarms
require(!borrowGuardianPaused[cToken], "borrow is paused");

require(isMarketListed(cToken), "market not listed");

if (!markets[cToken].accountMembership[borrower]) {
// only cTokens may call borrowAllowed if borrower not in market
require(msg.sender == cToken, "sender must be cToken");

// attempt to add borrower to the market
require(addToMarketInternal(CToken(msg.sender), borrower) == Error.NO_ERROR, "failed to add market");

// it should be impossible to break the important invariant
assert(markets[cToken].accountMembership[borrower]);
}

require(oracle.getUnderlyingPrice(CToken(cToken)) != 0, "price error");

uint256 borrowCap = borrowCaps[cToken];
// Borrow cap of 0 corresponds to unlimited borrowing
if (borrowCap != 0) {
uint256 totalBorrows = CToken(cToken).totalBorrows();
uint256 nextTotalBorrows = add_(totalBorrows, borrowAmount);
require(nextTotalBorrows < borrowCap, "market borrow cap reached");
}

(Error err, , uint256 shortfall) = getHypotheticalAccountLiquidityInternal(
borrower,
CToken(cToken),
0,
borrowAmount
);
require(err == Error.NO_ERROR, "failed to get account liquidity");
require(shortfall == 0, "insufficient liquidity");

return uint256(Error.NO_ERROR);
}

而在 getHypotheticalAccountLiquidityInternal 裡面,會呼叫 oracle.getUnderlyingPrice(asset); 來取得價格,getUnderlyingPrice 的實作如下:

/**
* @notice Get the underlying price of a listed cToken asset
* @param cToken The cToken to get the underlying price of
* @return The underlying asset price mantissa (scaled by 1e18)
*/

function getUnderlyingPrice(CToken cToken) public view returns (uint256) {
address cTokenAddress = address(cToken);
if (cTokenAddress == cEthAddress) {
// ether always worth 1
return 1e18;
} else if (cTokenAddress == crXSushiAddress) {
// Handle xSUSHI.
uint256 exchangeRate = XSushiExchangeRateInterface(xSushiExRateAddress).getExchangeRate();
return mul_(getTokenPrice(sushiAddress), Exp({mantissa: exchangeRate}));
}

address underlying = CErc20(cTokenAddress).underlying();

// Handle LP tokens.
if (isUnderlyingLP[underlying]) {
return getLPFairPrice(underlying);
}

// Handle Yvault tokens.
if (yvTokens[underlying].isYvToken) {
return getYvTokenPrice(underlying);
}

// Handle curve pool tokens.
if (crvTokens[underlying].isCrvToken) {
return getCrvTokenPrice(underlying);
}

return getTokenPrice(underlying);
}

接著我們來看 getYvTokenPrice

/**
* @notice Get price for Yvault tokens
* @param token The Yvault token
* @return The price
*/

function getYvTokenPrice(address token) internal view returns (uint256) {
YvTokenInfo memory yvTokenInfo = yvTokens[token];
require(yvTokenInfo.isYvToken, "not a Yvault token");

uint256 pricePerShare;
address underlying;
if (yvTokenInfo.version == YvTokenVersion.V1) {
pricePerShare = YVaultV1Interface(token).getPricePerFullShare();
underlying = YVaultV1Interface(token).token();
} else {
pricePerShare = YVaultV2Interface(token).pricePerShare();
underlying = YVaultV2Interface(token).token();
}

uint256 underlyingPrice;
if (crvTokens[underlying].isCrvToken) {
underlyingPrice = getCrvTokenPrice(underlying);
} else {
underlyingPrice = getTokenPrice(underlying);
}
return mul_(underlyingPrice, Exp({mantissa: pricePerShare}));
}

這邊的 YVaultV2Interface(token).pricePerShare() 如果再繼續深入追下去,會發現是透過另一個叫做 _totalAssets 的值除以 totalSupply 算出來的,而這個 _totalAssets 就是 token 數量。

因此,只要合約有的 token 數量增加,pricePerShare 就會跟著增加。

此次攻擊便是透過直接將錢轉入 pool 中,增加 token 數量且抬高抵押品的價格,來使得攻擊者可以借出更多的資產。

# 攻擊分析

攻擊者在 2021/10/27 的下午 1:54:10 發起攻擊,交易為 0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92

可以看到攻擊流程中經歷多次的代幣轉換:

p2

而最關鍵的步驟是在圖中框起來的地方,攻擊者藉由「直接轉入」token 的方式,使得池子內的 token 數量增加而 totalSupply 不變,藉此抬高價格。

p3

一般正常的操作是「存入」A token,換取另外一個 B token,此時合約地址有的 token 數量跟 totalSupply 應該是一致的,但攻擊者可以藉由直接送錢給合約,來達成 A token 數量增加,但是 B 的發行數量不變。

價格抬高以後,抵押品的價值翻倍,可以借出的東西就變多了,此時攻擊者把平台上能借的東西都借走了:

p4

最後再把一部分資金拿去償還閃電貸,成功獲利出場。

# 修補建議

在選擇 price oracle 的時候,應該選擇比較不容易被操控價格之方法,才能確保 oracle 的穩定性,避免在短時間內被大幅控制價格而讓攻擊者獲利。

# 總結

透過閃電貸來操控價格是個在 DeFi 中十分常見的攻擊手法,開發者在選擇 price oracle 的時候,應該特別注意背後的原理以及被操控的可能性,謹慎選擇安全的價格計算方式,才能防止此類攻擊。

參考資料:

  1. 细节分析:DeFi 平台Cream Finance 再遭攻击,1.3 亿美金被盗
  2. 零时科技 | DeFi平台Cream Finance攻击事件分析
  3. Creamed Cream – Learn the Secret Recipe (Cream Hack Analysis)

Tag

Recommendation

  1. 如何防範Solidity中的隨機性漏洞
  2. DeFi 穩定幣 Beanstalk 遭受攻擊事件分析
  3. 中小企業做不好資安的5大關鍵因素
  4. 跟端點防護軟體玩玩貓捉老鼠的遊戲 - Shellcode loader
  5. Android App 逆向入門之二:修改 smali 程式碼

Discussion(login required)