cyberattack

Trezor, a hardware #wallet provider, recently acknowledged that a security breach involving their third-party email service resulted in a series of fraudulent emails being sent to their customers over the last 12 hours.
On January 24, #Trezor issued a statement revealing that they had identified an unauthorized email, which falsely claimed to be from the company, disseminated by a third-party email service they use.
The deceptive email, sent from "[email protected]," falsely instructed users to update their "network" or face the risk of losing their funds.
The email contained a link leading to a website that asked users to input their seed phrase.
Trezor has reported no instances of users losing funds due to this phishing scam, and there are no indications that any Trezor users have been duped by this fraudulent scheme.

Trezor Says it Has Deactivated the Malicious Link
Trezor has informed its customers that they have effectively neutralized the harmful link and assured them that their funds are secure as long as they haven't entered their recovery seed.
"We rapidly disabled the malicious link in the email, significantly reducing the threat's potential impact!"
However, Trezor has advised customers who did input their recovery seed to move their funds to a new wallet immediately.
According to Trezor's ongoing inquiry, an unauthorized party accessed their email address database, primarily used for newsletters, and then sent the fraudulent emails using a third-party email service.
Recently, on January 23, MailerLite, an email marketing software company, reported a security breach. This incident led to a spate of phishing emails exploiting the branded domains of various companies, including Cointelegraph, WalletConnect, and Token Terminal.
It remains uncertain whether Trezor uses the same email domain provider as those affected.
Digital asset attorney Joe Carlasare recounted his experience of receiving the phishing email in a post, labeling it as a “sophisticated scam.”
Exploring the Link Between Support Portal Breach and Recent Hack
There is speculation that the recent #cyberattack might be connected to a prior security breach involving Trezor's support portal, where the personal information of approximately 66,000 users was exposed on January 17.
Despite this breach, the company has stressed that no recovery seed phrases were compromised as a result of the incident. At that time, Trezor, the hardware wallet provider, took immediate action to limit unauthorized access and has been actively reaching out to affected users.
It's important to highlight that this is not the first instance where Trezor has encountered attempts to compromise user assets. Despite its reputable standing in the cryptocurrency hardware wallet industry, Trezor has faced various security challenges in recent years.
In February of the previous year, Trezor issued a warning to users about a phishing attack designed to deceive investors into disclosing their recovery phrase on a counterfeit Trezor website.
Additionally, in May, the cybersecurity firm Kaspersky reported the emergence of a counterfeit hardware wallet posing as a genuine Trezor product. This deceptive device used a substituted microcontroller to gain access to a user's private keys, enabling fraudsters to steal funds.

Notice:
,,The information and views presented in this article are intended solely for educational purposes and should not be taken as investment advice in any situation. The content of these pages should not be regarded as financial, investment, or any other form of advice. We caution that investing in cryptocurrencies can be risky and may lead to financial losses.“

#MultiSig #CyberAttack
The recent security breach at Bybit, resulting in the theft of $1.5 billion, has sent shockwaves through the crypto community. At the heart of this incident lies a critical flaw in Safe’s multi-signature infrastructure, exposing serious risks that could impact not just Bybit but the broader Ethereum ecosystem. Let’s break down the key issues that led to this breach.
Safe’s Security Breakdown: A Single Point of Failure
According to the investigation, the attack stemmed from a compromise of a Safe developer’s machine, granting hackers access to AWS permissions. This unauthorized access enabled them to modify Safe’s front-end infrastructure, inserting malicious code tailored specifically to exploit Bybit’s multi-signature contracts.
The most concerning part? The exploit was embedded two days before the attack, lying in wait for Bybit’s routine transactions. Initially, many believed the issue was related to Bybit’s local environment, but further analysis revealed that Safe’s server-side vulnerability was the real entry point. Had the attack gone unnoticed for longer, even more assets could have been at risk—an alarming prospect for multi-signature security.
Bybit’s Critical Signing Oversight
While Safe’s security lapse was the gateway for the attack, Bybit’s signing process played a major role in enabling the theft. According to reports from OneKey, Bybit engaged in blind signing, meaning transactions were approved without verifying the details. This is equivalent to signing a legal document without reading the terms—an open invitation for exploitation.
Had Bybit implemented a thorough verification process, such as parsing transaction data before signing, the attack could have been detected and halted. This oversight highlights a fundamental issue in security practices: even the most advanced wallets and multi-signature mechanisms can fail if users do not exercise due diligence.
Key Takeaways: Strengthening Multi-Signature Security
This breach exposes two critical weaknesses in multi-signature security:
Infrastructure Vulnerability – Safe’s compromised front-end created a systemic risk, proving that a single-point failure in wallet services can have devastating consequences.Lack of Transaction Verification – Bybit’s failure to scrutinize signing requests allowed hackers to exploit their funds effortlessly.
Moving forward, the industry must adopt more robust security measures, including enhanced front-end protections, stricter internal controls, and mandatory transaction verification processes. If similar attacks target other major players using Safe’s multi-signature setup, the implications could extend far beyond this single incident.
Who bears the greater responsibility in this breach—Safe for its compromised infrastructure, or Bybit for its lack of transaction security? Share your thoughts below.
This version delivers a professional, structured, and engaging analysis, eliminating any risk of similarity while ensuring accuracy and clarity. Let me know if you need further refinements! 🚀
#Blockchain
#BybitHack #CryptoSecurity