I get the skepticism about conspiracy theories, but in this case, dismissing insider involvement seems premature. The Verichains and Sygnia reports lay out a clear, sophisticated attack, but they also leave questions unanswered.
This wasn’t some random, opportunistic exploit. The malicious JavaScript injected into Safe.Global’s AWS S3 bucket wasn’t just tampering with transactions generically; it was hardcoded to specifically target Bybit’s multisig wallet and its signers. That level of precision suggests not just extensive pre-exploitation reconnaissance, but also insider knowledge of Bybit’s cold wallet structure and internal procedures.
A few things stand out:
- How did the attackers gain privileged access? Modifying production JavaScript files on Safe.Global requires either an API key, hijacking of admin access, or social engineering of someone with access. The reports confirm that Safe.Global’s S3 bucket was compromised, but they don’t explain how that access was obtained, arguably the most crucial part of the attack chain.
- The attackers waited until a high-value contract upgrade transaction was happening before executing the attack. That’s not the kind of timing you get from an external scan alone; it suggests someone either inside or very close to the operation had advance knowledge of Bybit’s transaction schedule.
- The malicious script was uploaded shortly before the high-value transaction, reinforcing the idea that the attackers weren’t just sitting on their access; they knew exactly when to act.
- Within two minutes of the 'heist', the malicious JavaScript files on Safe.Global were reverted back. That’s an incredibly fast response, which again proves their meticulous planning.
So, yes, it was a legitimate hack, I never denied that or doubted nation-state involvement. But that doesn’t rule out an insider role, either through direct involvement or negligence.
It’s easy to say "where’s the proof of an inside job?" but the better question is: where’s the proof that this wasn’t at least partly facilitated by someone on the inside? There are too many unanswered questions, including:
- How Safe.Global’s S3 credentials were compromised (was it phishing? A rogue employee? A vulnerable third-party provider?)
- How the attackers knew when to strike and which wallets to target.
- Why is there no evidence of Bybit being compromised?
- Why was the malicious JavaScript not detected before the attack?
Right now, the reports don’t address any of this. What’s also worth noting is that there’s no reported compromise within Bybit’s infrastructure, meaning there’s no evidence (yet) of eavesdropping on sensitive internal communications. This makes it even more likely that someone with access, either at Safe or Bybit, played a role in facilitating this breach.
Safe.Global is probably in full damage-control mode right now. I doubt we’ll get more transparency anytime soon, at least not until their PR team figures out how to spin this into the usual "this could have happened to anyone" narrative.
Until these gaps are explained, skepticism about an insider angle isn’t tinfoil-hat territory, it’s just paying attention to what hasn’t been answered yet.