2026-01-07 07:29:48

Regarding the IPOR Fusion security incident, the key issue lies in the project team managing the EOA accounts through EIP-7702, where the underlying contract design has a flaw—insufficient restrictions on external calls. As a result, an attacker exploited this vulnerability to create a malicious circuit breaker contract (Plasma Vault). This malicious contract can bypass normal withdrawal mechanisms and directly transfer funds from the vault. In simple terms, the contract permissions were set too loosely, not fully locking down which operations can be executed and which cannot. This incident serves as a reminder: even innovative extension schemes (such as EIP-7702) must be implemented with extreme caution, and access control of the foundational contracts must be made sufficiently strict.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BlockchainNewbie

· 01-07 07:59

Once permissions are loosened, funds are gone. How many projects have fallen into this trap? --- Again, access control is not strict enough... No matter how innovative the solution is, if the basic work isn't done well, it's useless. --- EIP-7702 is such a new thing, yet the underlying contracts are still so casual? No wonder they get exploited. --- The Plasma Vault setup that directly transfers money from the database—what kind of outrageous permission settings are needed to let someone exploit it? --- Exactly, loose permissions are like sending an invitation to hackers. How come some projects still haven't learned this lesson? --- It's always these kinds of issues. The development team really can't afford to skip audits. --- One word: strict. If not strict, you'll get stabbed—no negotiations. --- Innovation is good, but how can you innovate if you can't even defend the basic security line? --- The vault was directly emptied—what a costly lesson. --- This is probably because there was no audit or the audit was just for show.

View OriginalReply0

ChainPoet

· 01-07 07:55

Another permission vulnerability, EIP-7702? Is that all? Before new features are implemented, they really should be audited multiple times. --- So it just didn't hardcode access control, giving the circuit breaker contract a chance to exploit? Luckily it was discovered. --- Too lenient permissions directly lead to black-hat attacks. Contract security is really no small matter. --- So many pitfalls before launching innovative solutions. Developers are under a lot of pressure. But no matter how big, basic protections must be in place, right? --- It's another access control issue... When will the industry truly start to pay attention to this? --- Bypassing the extraction mechanism to transfer directly—this move is a bit harsh. Just thinking about it is terrifying. --- It seems EIP-7702 itself is fine; mainly, people just didn't use it properly. --- The circuit breaker contract sounds intimidating, but actually, it's just that permission management hasn't kept up. --- This incident once again proves that the newer the technology, the more cautious we must be. Innovation shouldn't come at the expense of security.

View OriginalReply0

GweiWatcher

· 01-07 07:55

Is it just poor permission management again? Is it really that easy for a contract to be breached?

View OriginalReply0

HashBandit

· 01-07 07:49

ngl, another day another "we forgot access control exists" moment... back in my mining days we at least knew how to lock down our rigs lmao. EIP-7702 sounded cool on paper but this is exactly why i don't trust fancy new standards until like year three of mainnet... permissions too loose = funds go bye bye, pretty straightforward stuff

Reply0

NFTBlackHole

· 01-07 07:41

Once again, permission settings fail spectacularly. These developers really need to learn how to write proper access control. EIP-7702 can't save a garbage architecture no matter how much it innovates; if the foundation isn't solid, it's all pointless. Plasma Vault directly calls itself a treasury—laughable. Is this what you call "innovation"? Why is it always the same pitfalls? Are smart contract audits just a formality? New mechanisms come out, and they want to launch immediately—are they gambling, brothers? With such lax permissions, how dare you call this a product launch? Truly impressive. Another textbook-level smart contract vulnerability. When will they finally learn their lesson?

View OriginalReply0

ArbitrageBot

· 01-07 07:39

It's the old trick of poor permission management again. No matter how awesome EIP-7702 is, it can't save shitty code. --- The contract design is this level and still dares to go live; access control is virtually nonexistent, no wonder it's exploited. --- Talking about innovative solutions is all nonsense; if basic security isn't done well, everything else is pointless. --- Plasma Vault's move was truly brilliant, pushing the vulnerability to the extreme. Engineers really should reflect on this. --- I've seen this kind of thing too many times; it's always due to lax permissions. --- EIP-7702 may look impressive, but in practice, it still faces the same old issues. --- The money is gone directly; no amount of technological innovation can compensate for the lack of proper auditing.

View OriginalReply0

MidnightSnapHunter

· 01-07 07:38

Permission settings are really a nightmare. No matter how much EIP-7702 is innovated, it can't compensate for poor infrastructure... The lessons from IPOR are painfully clear. Another story of "We didn't expect it to be played like this," truly showing that contract security is never-ending. Circumventing circuit breaker contracts' withdrawal mechanisms? It indicates there must be issues with the audit... Otherwise, how could no one have thought of this? This is what happens when innovation is prioritized over defense. Such loose permission controls are truly outrageous. It's always the same. Whenever new things come out, they rush to adopt them, but the security defenses are as fragile as paper... When will we learn to get the basics right before expanding?

View OriginalReply0