POMABuster: Detecting Price Oracle Manipulation Attacks in Decentralized Finance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Price Oracle Manipulation Attacks (POMAs) are increasingly occurring in blockchain systems, and result in significant financial loss. Prior work on detecting POMAs only considers single-transaction attacks, in which the entire attack is contained within a single transaction. We systematically study POMAs in blockchain systems (Ethereum). We find that POMAs that span multiple transactions have become much more frequent than single-transaction POMAs. Thus, there is a compelling need for a framework that can detect POMAs spanning multiple transactions. Moreover, there is a need to come up with generic rules for detecting POMAs rather than rely on past attack patterns like prior work has done.We first devise first-principle rules for detecting POMAs based on traditional stock market manipulation attacks. We then propose POMABuster, which leverages these rules to detect POMAs spanning both single and multiple transactions. POMABuster leverages common characteristics of POMA attackers’ behavior to optimize its detection. We evaluate POMABuster on 2.5 years’ worth of transactions from the blockchain, as well as a dataset compiled from the Code4rena audit reports. Our results demonstrate that POMABuster detects nearly 6.5X more POMAs than prior work. Further, POMABuster has a 1% worst-case false positive rate, and zero false negative rate, both of which significantly outperform prior work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".