

The binance “hack” is looking extremely fishy
Initially they blamed a single devops engineer losing his laptop, this is now acknowledged to not be the case.
But let’s start there.
That means the system is so insecure that a single developer has the ability to just transfer $6 billion of crypto. Because if it’s plausible that their credentials being stolen can do that, this means even the most basic cybersecurity and access control principles are not being employed and in fact they’re just giving root access to devops to simplify operations. Insane.
Oh but that wasn’t actually true.
Now they say “multiple breaches” occurred.
The fact this wasn’t immediately clear, the fact they initially thought “well I guess it was someone stealing a system-wide root access credential”… this means besides the fact that system-wide root access credentials even exist in the first place…
It means they don’t have the observability in place to immediately see if it was in fact those credentials that were used to perform the hack.
So that’s now two basic concepts of cybersecurity obviously not being used despite $20 billion in assets:
- Root credentials exist and are given to devops.
And
- They don’t have audit logging in place to see what actions are performed, audit logging which should record “identity X performed Y”.
They also say that the hackers carefully covered their tracks.
Fucking bullshit. They just weren’t recording anything. It’s obvious.
Now another thing.
Why was their instinct to immediately put public blame on this engineer?
Now they put the blame on “North Korean hackers.” What is the evidence for these being North Korean hackers?
It’s actually extremely thin. Basically the “pattern of transfers” to launder the crypto through different exchanges and transfers is being treated as a fingerprint.
Which is also fucking bullshit. Because it would be some kind of algorithmic scramble to try to make the traceability as difficult as possible and to create plausible deniability about the source of funds.
That’s the fingerprint of any crypto scam.
Anyway they say this pattern of transfers is a fingerprint that matches a previous hack that was linked to North Koreans.
So even if you accept the fingerprint claim, the claim this hack is North Koreans entirely rests on the previous hack being North Koreans.
What is the evidence of these previous hack being North Koreans? Fucking zero. The FBI said that was a leading theory at one point, without citing their reasons why or even being conclusive about it.
Now that previous hack… it used Trojans with names like MANYUSCRIPT, Lazarus, other biblical names from the Old Testament. Talmudic names. The first hack really sounds more like it was Israel given their naming conventions.
Now, I think it’s actually pretty weak to claim this is linked to the previous hack anyway. Using AI-driven analysis (yep) to determine a fingerprint of algorithmic crypto cycling is a fucking weak premise to link these two hacks together.
So whatever it’s a red herring imo.
We return to the facts of this case
(1) Management is eager to put the blame at easy targets. The careless devops engineer who was so irresponsible as to have his system wide root access credentials stolen, rather than the leadership team who allow that in the first place when tens of billions are accessible to those credentials.
(2) The absolutely shocking lack of observability in this system to even hold that theory in the first place, when it should have been immediately obvious who was doing what inside the system.
(3) Which means a leadership team who have actively chosen to build a crypto fund with less security and observability than the mini pc I use to stream movies from.
(4) These are active choices. Active choices to make it extremely easy to steal crypto from Binance in an untraceable manner.
(5) And then after the theft, multiple attempts to put the blame and attention onto targets that seem obvious on the surface level and only become implausible when you actually look at what the specifics of the finger pointing claims are.
(6) ….and Binance has been gradually losing markets as they fail to achieve regulatory compliance in multiple jurisdictions around the world.
This, my friends, is looking like a good old-fashioned crypto exchange “accidentally losing your money” rug pull.
It simply is not plausible you’d be running a banking system with $20 billion of assets under management with such insanely extremely poor cybersecurity practices.
System wide root access given to devops to just have on their laptop.
An obvious lack of audit and access logging to even maintain that theory in the first place.
An obvious lack of observability to not realize there were multiple intrusions occurring in multiple systems simultaneously.
This is a designed failure. An intentionally, laughably, ridiculously low level of cybersecurity.
It’s an intentional design choice. It’s an inside job by people with very high levels of authority within the company.




Posting my loss porn to wallstreetbets so I can lose money on Reddit on Reddit