How does one of the world’s leading crypto exchanges lose $1.5 billion in a single attack? That question shook the crypto space last month, when Bybit, a Dubai-based exchange, fell victim to the largest cryptocurrency heist in history. Hackers exploited security weaknesses in Safe Wallet to manipulate transaction approvals, siphoning 401,000 ETH into their own wallets and leaving the industry wondering just how safe the leading crypto exchanges actually are.

The culprit behind the breach turned out to be the infamous Lazarus Group, a North Korean state-sponsored hacking unit. The hackers used phishing and social engineering to trick employees into approving fraudulent transactions. The funds were converted and split across 50 wallets before being funneled through cross-chain bridges, mixing services like Tornado Cash, and anonymous exchanges to evade asset freezes.

Bybit has offered a bounty of $140 million for tracking down the stolen money, but North Korea’s sophisticated laundering techniques guarantee that recovery will be quite difficult. Meanwhile, Bybit claims it has fully replenished user funds targeted by the attack through a combination of emergency loans and whale deposits.

Image Source: CNBC

How the Bybit Hack Unfolded

The Bybit hack succeeded through a combination of social engineering, smart contract vulnerabilities, and human error. Although Safe Wallet used a multi-signature scheme requiring approvals from three out of six signers, hackers were still able to bypass security protocols. They exploited a feature of the smart contract which allowed them to make malicious operations appear like a routine transaction.

The attackers created a transaction that tricked signers into believing they were approving a standard ETH transfer to Bybit’s hot wallet. Misleading transaction details were displayed through the Safe Wallet interface, and no one realized that the transaction contained hidden data that redirected the wallet’s proxy contract logic to a malicious contract. Human oversight was certainly a big factor, since certain red flags were overlooked, and three out of six signers approved the transaction without taking time to verify details on their Ledger devices.

Could the Bybit Hack Have Been Prevented?

Although the breach was highly sophisticated, stronger security measures could have reduced the risk. These include:

Stronger Multi-Layer Authentication and Transaction Verification

Better authentication measures could have blocked unauthorized access to Bybit wallets. Requiring physical verification such as biometric confirmation or multiple layers of approval from different devices could have helped stop the massive fund transfers before it was too late.

Instant Anomaly Detection and Auto-Freezing Mechanisms

Hackers used DEXs, cross-chain bridges, and mixers to make the stolen funds untraceable. A real-time AI-driven anomaly detection system could have identified these transactions as abnormal and immediately flagged or delayed them for manual review. Suspicious withdrawals could have triggered an auto-freeze mechanism, stopping hackers from moving stolen assets.

Metadata-Based Offline Signing

One of the major vulnerabilities that led to the Bybit hack was blind signing—a security flaw where transactions are approved without verifying their actual content. Because the system did not properly display or verify transaction details before approval, Bybit unknowingly signed off on unauthorized fund transfers, which allowed attackers to steal the funds.

Polkadot’s metadata-based offline signing solution offers a way to prevent blind signing by ensuring that every transaction is fully decoded and verifiable before execution. In Polkadot’s ecosystem, transactions contain runtime metadata which provides clear details about what is being approved. Instead of signing a confusing, unreadable cryptographic hash, users can see exactly what the transaction does, where the funds are going, and the conditions attached to it before signing. This prevents attackers from injecting malicious transactions that users don’t understand.

To make this work efficiently, Polkadot breaks transactions into metadata chunks and streams them to an offline signer, such as a hardware wallet or air-gapped device. The offline signer fully decodes the transaction before signing, ensuring that users can review and confirm the actual details before giving approval. If Bybit had implemented this kind of metadata validation, its system could have caught and blocked unauthorized transaction attempts before they were approved, effectively preventing the hack.

To ensure the integrity of transaction metadata, Polkadot also incorporates a trustless verification system. The metadata chunks are stored in a Merkle tree, which is a cryptographic structure that creates a unique root hash representing all valid transaction data. When a transaction is signed, the system compares the metadata hash with the expected on-chain data. If the metadata does not match the expected values, the transaction is automatically rejected before execution. This means that even if an attacker attempted to send a fake transaction with altered metadata, the runtime would detect the discrepancy and refuse to process it.

The Bybit hack is a wake-up call for crypto exchanges to ramp up their security measures. Without better protection, it may be just a matter of time before the next billion-dollar breach shakes the crypto world. 

If blockchains and crypto exchanges were to adopt a metadata-based signing system, they could eliminate blind signing and greatly improve their current security measures. Offline signing would become more secure, transparent, and resistant to tampering. As cyberattacks grow more sophisticated, advanced solutions like Pokadot’s could be key to protecting billions in digital assets.

‍