4 ms·
Given that the UI they saw was compromised, they likely believed they were signing some routine 1M rebalancing transaction.
by jgilias 2y ago
Given that the UI they saw was compromised, they likely believed they were signing some routine 1M rebalancing transaction.
- fc417fc802 2y agoOdd that you wouldn't use separate keys for that given the wildly different levels of risk involved.
- jgilias 2y agoSeparate keys for what? They believed they were signing a routine transaction. That’s the whole idea of the hack. Splitting funds over 100 wallets would’ve helped. A 100x lower amount would be lost. And/Or having separate hardened devices used only for signing.
- fc417fc802 2y agoSeparate keys (ie wallets) for routine small transactions versus the cold wallets used for huge sums. Perhaps I've misunderstood but it sounded like they performed a rare transaction while being led to believe it was a routine one. I'm wondering why you wouldn't split the infrastructure given the differences in risk.
- jgilias 2y agoSorry, yeah, I misunderstood what you meant! Splitting funds more would’ve been a good idea. And being paranoid about _any_ transaction touching the “big-pot” wallet too!