❌

Visualização de leitura

↗️

$6.3 Billion Stolen from Binance in Attack Attributed to North Korea

✇Security Affairs
Por:Pierluigi Paganini

Binance links a $6.3 billion crypto theft to a compromised DevOps laptop, with North Korean hackers blamed by blockchain analysts.

Binance was investigating suspicious transfers that early estimates put at up to $5.8 billion. A day later, multiple media outlets reported that the largest cryptocurrency exchange had linked the theft of about $6.3 billion to a DevOps engineer’s compromised laptop. Billions had moved out of wallets linked to the exchange.

According to The Block, blockchain analyst Spreek identified approximately $3.55 billion in incoming transfers to an initially unidentified wallet.

“Onchain data flagged by analyst Spreek shows about $3.55 billion in incoming transfers to the unlabeled wallet, with nearly $900 million subsequently moved across other wallets.” The Block reports. “Conor Grogan, a senior director and product leader at Coinbase, says the amount is up to $5.8 billion.”

Coinbase executive Conor Grogan initially estimated that the total value of the movements could reach $5.8 billion.

Those figures came from blockchain tracking and differing estimates, so they didn’t necessarily show the amount stolen.

Binance pointed out that customer funds were safe, while co-founder Changpeng Zhao, widely known as CZ, said the activity appeared to be a hack. Zhao no longer manages Binance’s platform, but said he expected customers’ funds to be fully covered.

The company said its user funds were “completely safe.”

“Our teams are aware of reports of a potential security issue and are actively investigating. User funds are completely safe. Our security teams are reviewing all relevant information with urgency, and we will provide updates through official Binance channels as soon as we have verified information.” the company states. “Users should remain cautious of scams and should not trust unofficial links, messages, or requests for account information.”

That assurance is important, but it doesn’t replace a technical explanation of how the transfers occurred or independent confirmation of the final impact.

“Our initial investigation suggests this security incident may have started with a compromised DevOps engineer’s laptop. That gave an attacker access to a service container, where they submitted unauthorized withdrawal transactions.” Binance Co-CEO Richard Teng explained.

“To be clear: the attacker did not simply use one engineer’s permissions, and this was not a single “one-click” action. It involved a more complex attack process. Our investigation has not attributed responsibility to any individual.”

I want to speak to you directly about what happened.

Bottom line – your money is safe, and we're covering every loss.

Our initial investigation suggests this security incident may have started with a compromised DevOps engineer's laptop. That gave an attacker access to a…

— Richard Teng (@_RichardTeng) October 30, 2026

Attackers used access from an engineer’s laptop to reach a service container and send unauthorized withdrawal requests. Binance says it has found no evidence that attackers stole any wallet private keys.

Binance also said it had found “additional points of breach” and was still investigating. Co-CEO Richard Teng said the investigation had not identified anyone responsible. After the attack, Binance suspended deposits and withdrawals to carry out security checks, cancelled the permissions linked to the affected address, and began working with blockchain analysis firms and law enforcement to track the stolen funds.

Binance says it will cover all losses using its SAFU fund and its own money, and that customer funds are safe. The company also plans to publish an updated Proof of Reserves once it has completed the recovery work. This commitment does not replace a detailed technical explanation or independent confirmation of the full impact of the attack.

Binance hasn’t named a culprit, but the blockchain analysis firm TRM has. It attributes the attack to TraderTraitor, a North Korean state-backed unit also tracked as Lazarus Group and APT38, and Chainalysis says it’s highly confident in that finding.

Our investigators observed funds stolen by DPRK in last month's Bitget exploit commingling with funds stolen from Binance.

We have a high degree of confidence that DPRK is responsible for the $6.4 billion hack of Binance. https://t.co/xj9dQYcbKr

— Chainalysis (@chainalysis) October 30, 2026

TRM says the attacker moved about $6.36 billion out of Binance wallets on ten blockchains on October 29, most of it in roughly 20 minutes starting at 20:05 UTC. That makes it the largest crypto theft on record, about four times the $1.5 billion Bybit hack of February 2025.

“On October 29, 2026, an attacker moved approximately USD 6.36 billion out of Binance wallets on ten blockchains, most of it in about 20 minutes starting at 20:05 UTC. That makes this the largest crypto theft on record, about four times the USD 1.5 billion Bybit hack of February 2025. Binance has confirmed a security incident and suspended withdrawals on several networks.” TRM said. “TRM attributes the attack to TraderTraitor, North Korea’s elite hacking unit, based on robust on and off-chain intelligence. We make this judgment with high confidence. TRM is tracking the funds and alerting partners through the Beacon Network.”

Freezing the money only went partway. Tether, Circle, Ripple and World Liberty Financial froze about $2.67 billion in stablecoins, and Arbitrum’s Security Council froze 8,426 ETH and 74.6 million ARB, for roughly $2.7 billion in all. But the attacker raced the freezes by selling USDT to market makers and borrowing ETH against USDT on Aave. It now holds more than 420,000 ETH and 18,270 BTC, about $2.4 billion beyond any issuer’s reach.

The early freeze numbers were messy too, Tether and Circle froze approximately $1.79 billion in stablecoins associated with the suspicious transfers in the initial reports. Those amounts describe different moments, and you shouldn’t add them without checking whether they cover distinct assets. A freeze works on tokens that have an issuer to call, and Ether and Bitcoin don’t.

Hot wallets help explain how this type of theft can happen. They store cryptocurrency in systems connected to the internet, allowing exchanges to process withdrawals quickly. But this also makes strong security controls essential. Investigators still need to determine who initiated the transfers, whether they were authorized, whether attackers gained control of the wallets, and whose funds were stolen.

Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao, who no longer runs the company, said the activity looked like a hack and expected customers to be fully compensated. Large transfers alone do not prove a cyberattack, but the findings that emerged later provided strong evidence of a breach.

Customers also need to be careful. Attackers often exploit the confusion after a major incident by spreading fake announcements, pretending to be support staff, and directing users to fraudulent websites. Use only Binance’s official channels, avoid unexpected links, and never share passwords, authentication codes, or wallet recovery phrases in response to unsolicited messages. Security teams should also watch for phishing emails that use the incident to pressure employees into verifying their accounts.

The lesson goes beyond Binance. A public blockchain records every transaction, but it cannot show who authorized it or how attackers gained access. Blockchain transparency does not guarantee operational security.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Binance)

↗️

Hackers Drain $320 Million From Liquid Network, Then Return Most of It

✇Security Affairs
Por:Pierluigi Paganini

Crypto exchange network Liquid Network lost $320 million overnight, then got most of it back after the hackers demanded a bug fix instead of a ransom

Bitcoin’s Liquid Network, a sidechain built by Blockstream and used by dozens of exchanges to move funds faster and more privately than the main Bitcoin blockchain allows, got drained of roughly 4,000 of the 4,200 Bitcoin sitting in its federation wallet on September 6.

The attackers, who described themselves as white-hat hackers, have since returned 3,400 of those crypto coins, worth around $262.6 million, while keeping roughly 598 BTC, close to $47 million, for themselves.

Update: 3,400 BTC of the roughly 4,000 BTC withdrawn on September 6 has been returned to the @Liquid_BTC Federation wallet. The return followed confirmation from @Blockstream that the affected bridge nodes have been patched. Approximately 598 BTC remains outstanding, and…

— Samson Mow (@Excellion) September 7, 2026

The size of the initial theft makes this much more serious than another crypto hack. The attacker took nearly 95% of the wallet’s Bitcoin in a single transaction, leaving the fund behind Liquid’s L-BTC token with only about 197 BTC.

This wasn’t a partial breach. The attacker drained almost the entire collateral pool that should back every L-BTC token with an equal amount of real Bitcoin.

How the money actually left is the more technically interesting part. According to Bitrue’s breakdown of the exploit, the attackers didn’t steal a private key or compromise any authorization credentials at all. A software bug in Elements, the open-source code powering Liquid Network, apparently let more L-BTC exist than the system’s real Bitcoin reserves should have allowed, and that unbacked token was then redeemed for genuine BTC through SideSwap’s authorized peg-out mechanism. Liquid itself confirmed the specific access point directly, stating plainly that the funds moved through SideSwap’s authorization key, and that key itself was never compromised.

What happened next is where this stops looking like an ordinary crypto heist. Rather than demanding a ransom payment or threatening to dump the stolen coins, the attackers negotiated entirely in public, writing messages directly into Bitcoin transactions using the OP_RETURN field, a way to embed small amounts of arbitrary data on-chain.

The discussion between @Blockstream and the white-hat hacker (WHH) regarding the ~4000 BTC from @Liquid_BTC is happening in public. It seems to be their preference over email. As it's hard to follow the chain of messages in OP_RETURN, here's a summary with links.

11:30 AM PDT -… https://t.co/IEXyFpBITx

— Samson Mow (@Excellion) September 7, 2026

Their opening demand, relayed through Liquid’s own channels, was refreshingly blunt: fix the underlying vulnerability first, confirm every node is patched, and only then would they send the money back.

Blockstream appears to have met that condition. After the team confirmed that the affected bridge nodes had received the security patches, the attackers returned 3,400 BTC to the federation wallet. They first checked that they had the correct return address. They then kept the remaining 598 BTC, effectively rewarding themselves for the bug discovery. Former Blockstream executive Samson Mow provided updates during the incident but warned that the recovery is not over. The network remains paused while federation members complete more security work, resolve a chain split caused by the freeze, and restore confidence that L-BTC has full Bitcoin backing before they restart the network.

Whether “white hat” is the right label here is a genuinely contested question, and not just semantically. Security specialist Alena Vránová pushed back hard against the framing on social media, arguing that exploiting a vulnerability, draining $320 million, and demanding a fix before returning the money still meets the legal definition of extortion, potentially carrying felony charges and prison sentences up to 20 years in the US. Calling yourself ethical after the fact doesn’t retroactively make unauthorized access to someone else’s wallet legal, whatever bug you’re fixing on the way out.

If you attacked @Liquid_BTC fix it fast I'd reckon to avoid serious trouble.

If you exploit vuln, steal 4k BTC and demand a fix for ransom, that's EXTORTION.

This can mean felony charges and long prison time. In the U.S. up to 20 years, and computer-fraud charges can add more. https://t.co/aekesa5K0n

— Alena V. (@AlenaSatoshi) September 7, 2026

The incident also creates a long-term trust problem that a security patch cannot fix. Galoy founder Nicolas Burtey argued that, even if the funds return in full, the attack has already damaged trust in Liquid. Who will trust Liquid with their money after this? The federated system promises one-to-one Bitcoin backing for every L-BTC token, but this attack showed that guarantee can fail. Recovering most of the funds does not erase that failure.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Liquid Network)

↗️

O que sabemos sobre o roubo de criptomoedas por meio de anúncios do Adform

✇Blog oficial da Kaspersky
Por:Stan Kaminsky

O Adform, uma importante plataforma de publicidade, permaneceu comprometido por aproximadamente 24 horas (desde o fim do dia 26 de julho até a noite de 27 de julho) após ser alvo de um ataque por invasores desconhecidos. Poucas pessoas fora do setor conhecem o nome, mas o Adform veicula cerca de 1,5 bilhão de impressões de anúncios todos os dias em dezenas de milhares de sites. Isso significa que qualquer pessoa que visitasse um site que veiculasse anúncios do Adform poderia ter sido alvo do ataque.

Os invasores não estavam tentando instalar malware. Em vez disso, eles executaram um script no navegador da vítima que verificava a área de transferência a cada três segundos. Se detectasse que um endereço de carteira de criptomoedas havia sido copiado, o script o substituía pelo endereço de carteira dos invasores. Assim, se alguém tivesse um site com o anúncio malicioso aberto em uma guia do navegador e estivesse realizando uma transação com criptomoedas em outra guia ou em um aplicativo dedicado, os fundos poderiam acabar nas mãos dos invasores. Os responsáveis pelo Adform detectaram o ataque e corrigiram o problema, mas não há garantia de que um incidente semelhante não volte a acontecer. Por isso, todos os usuários devem se proteger contra publicidade maliciosa. Confira nossas dicas no final desta postagem.

O que sabemos sobre o ataque ao Adform

Não há muitas informações disponíveis, pois a declaração oficial da empresa aborda apenas o que aconteceu e quando, sem explicar a causa do incidente. Uma pesquisa independente revelou detalhes técnicos sobre como usuários comuns foram alvo do ataque, mas nada disso explica como o próprio Adform foi invadido inicialmente.

O que está claro é que os invasores inseriram seu próprio código no JavaScript carregado em todos os sites que veiculavam anúncios do Adform. Sempre que um anúncio estava prestes a ser exibido, o script era carregado do servidor do Adform, selecionava o anúncio correto e o exibia. No entanto, os invasores haviam acrescentado um conjunto de funções maliciosas: monitorar a área de transferência, enviar ao próprio servidor dados sobre o site em que o ataque ocorreu e o endereço IP da vítima, além de substituir endereços de carteiras de Bitcoin, Ethereum e Tron.

Para que o ataque funcionasse, bastava uma guia do navegador aberta com qualquer site que veiculasse anúncios do Adform. Não importava o tipo de site, a aparência do anúncio ou a qual anunciante ele pertencia. A única coisa que importava era se o site usava HTTP ou HTTPS. Segundo o Adform, o ataque não poderia ser realizado em um site carregado por HTTPS, pois, nesse caso, a conexão com o servidor dos invasores era bloqueada.

A empresa não divulgou informações sobre quantos usuários foram afetados nem sobre quantos sites ainda veiculam conteúdo e anúncios por HTTP.

Anúncios maliciosos fazem parte do nosso dia a dia

Infelizmente, anúncios on-line perigosos se tornaram um problema sistêmico. E não estamos falando apenas de anúncios de suplementos de procedência duvidosa ou de jogos de azar. Estamos falando de anúncios que disseminam malware ou levam a sites criados para roubar dados de pagamento e outras informações valiosas. Os invasores construíram uma infraestrutura em escala industrial para realizar esse tipo de ataque e utilizam diversas abordagens.

• Invadir e comprometer servidores de anúncios. O Adform não é um caso isolado. Por exemplo, invasores já invadiram servidores de anúncios do Revive, por exemplo, e disseminaram malware por meio de anúncios no PornHub.

• Sequestro das contas de anúncios de marcas legítimas e respeitáveis. Basta roubar a senha de alguém da equipe de marketing. A partir daí, os cibercriminosos veiculam anúncios se passando pela empresa que invadiram e promovendo atualizações falsas de aplicativos, promoções fraudulentas e golpes semelhantes. Nos piores casos, como nas invasões de contas da adtech.de e da adxpansion.com, os invasores conseguiram veicular anúncios que redirecionavam as vítimas diretamente para a instalação automática de malware (downloads drive-by).

• Comprar anúncios diretamente. Isso mesmo. Os invasores simplesmente criam suas próprias contas de anunciante e veiculam anúncios para seus sites de phishing e malware, como qualquer outra empresa na Internet.

Como os anúncios aparecem praticamente em todos os lugares, em sites, aplicativos e redes sociais, essas ameaças podem surgir em praticamente qualquer contexto. E existem variações dessa ameaça tanto em computadores quanto em dispositivos móveis.

Como se proteger de anúncios maliciosos

A única maneira de reduzir significativamente o risco é bloquear o máximo possível de anúncios e combinar isso com proteção contra ataques cibernéticos em todos os seus dispositivos:

• Use um serviço de DNS seguro com filtragem de conteúdo integrada. Eles são eficazes no bloqueio da maioria das redes de anúncios conhecidas. A ideia é simples: sempre que seu dispositivo tenta se conectar a um servidor, o serviço DNS bloqueia solicitações para domínios de anúncios conhecidos. Isso desativa os anúncios em todos os lugares de uma só vez: em smart TVs, em todos os navegadores e em aplicativos para dispositivos móveis. Alguns provedores de Internet oferecem esse serviço, mas uma solução mais simples e universal é configurar o DNS seguro no roteador da sua casa seguindo nosso guia.

• Ative os bloqueadores de anúncios e rastreadores em sua solução completa de cibersegurança. Recomendamos Kaspersky Premium, que chama esse recurso de Antibanner. Esse tipo de proteção é especialmente importante durante viagens, pois o DNS seguro pode causar problemas de conexão em hotéis, restaurantes e aeroportos.

• Use proteção para o navegador. Um software de segurança básico pode impedir o download e a execução de um malware de roubo de dados, mas um pequeno script, como o usado no ataque ao Adform, ainda pode passar despercebido. Para se proteger contra esse tipo de ameaça, use uma solução capaz de analisar o que realmente está acontecendo no navegador. No Kaspersky Premium, esse recurso é oferecido pela extensão de navegador Kaspersky Protection. Ela protege contra a coleta de dados on-line, bloqueia banners de anúncios, protege seus pagamentos, protege o que você digita e bloqueia ataques de phishing.

Quer saber quais outros riscos podem estar escondidos nos anúncios on-line e como se proteger? Confira outras postagens:

• Anunciantes compartilhando seus dados com… agências de inteligência
• Descubra por que os corretores de dados criam dossiês sobre você e como impedir que eles façam isso
• Como os smartphones criam um dossiê sobre você
• Quem está rastreando você na web e como fazem isso
• Como desaparecer da Internet

❌