News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack. Parent comment

Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by int_19h on Thursday July 20, 2017 @05:24PM (#14816419)
Do we really want to lower barrier to entry for writing code that can misdirect $30 million dollars just like that?

By the way, I went and looked at the offending contract. The pull request that introduced the line with the bug added 2228 new lines of code while removing 918 lines. In fact, the diff is so large that GitHub doesn't even show parts of it by default (including the part with the bug). The pull request was reviewed by a single other person, and committed on the same day it was submitted.

I don't think I'm comfortable with the barrier being that low, at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by ojr on Monday July 24, 2017 @12:49PM (#14840054)
it was missing one keyword that was the parity bug not in the 2228 lines, and the DAO hack had a line that was place 3 lines too early, a monetary system created 3 years ago and is highly demanded might have some growing pains
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by peternicky on Friday July 21, 2017 @04:42PM (#14823626)
Can you please link to this pull request?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by int_19h on Saturday July 22, 2017 @05:00AM (#14826118)
https://github.com/paritytech/parity/blame/4c32177ef3f4521c6...
[ Parent | on HN ]