Smart contract exploits are more ethical than hacking... or not?
April 18, 2021. Summarized by summa-bot.
Compression ratio: 28.4%. 1 min read.
There are many ways in which smart contracts can be exploited, and it’s vital for teams to fully understand each attack vector and vulnerability before building.
That talk is more than necessary, considering hackers stole more than $100 million from DeFi projects in 2020, accounting for 50% of all hacks this year, according to a CipherTrace report. Related: Roundup of crypto hacks, exploits and heists in 2020Some point out that the occurrences were merely exploits that shined a light on the vulnerabilities of the respective smart contracts.
By this logic, since the hackers exploited flaws without actually hacking in the traditional sense, the act of exploiting is ethically more justifiable.
An exploit is the specially crafted code that adversaries use to take advantage of a certain vulnerability, and to compromise a resource. Even mentioning the word “hack” in reference to blockchain might baffle an industry outsider less familiar with the technology, as security is one of the centerpieces of distributed ledger technology’s mainstream appeal.
These scenarios present loopholes in the most potent sense of the term. Insufficient security: When hacks are done through gaining undue access to a blockchain with weak security practices, is it really as bad if the door was left wide open?Are exploits more ethically justifiable than hacks?Many would argue that doing anything without consent cannot possibly be considered ethical, even if worse acts could have been committed.