What Exactly Happened in the Trust Wallet Hack Step 1: A New Browser Extension Update Was Released A new update for the Trust Wallet browser extension was releasedWhat Exactly Happened in the Trust Wallet Hack Step 1: A New Browser Extension Update Was Released A new update for the Trust Wallet browser extension was released
TrustWallet Hack Explained: From Update to Wallet Drains worth $4M in $TWT, BTC, ETH
What Exactly Happened in the Trust Wallet Hack
Step 1: A New Browser Extension Update Was Released
A new update for the Trust Wallet browser extension was released on December 24.
- The update seemed routine.
- No major security warnings came with it.
- Users installed it through the usual update process.
At this point, nothing seemed suspicious.
Step 2: New Code Was Added to the Extension
After the update, researchers looking into the extension’s files noticed changes in a JavaScript file known as 4482.js.
Key observation:
- The new code was not in earlier versions.
- It introduced network requests linked to user actions.
This matters because browser wallets are very sensitive environments; any new outgoing logic poses a high risk.
Step 3: Code Masqueraded as “Analytics”
The added logic appeared as analytics or telemetry code.
Specifically:
- It looked like tracking logic used by common analytics SDKs.
- It did not trigger all the time.
- It activated only under certain conditions.
This design made it harder to detect during casual testing.
Step 4: Trigger Condition Importing a Seed Phrase
Community reverse-engineering suggests the logic was triggered when a user imported a seed phrase into the extension.
Why this is critical:
- Importing a seed phrase gives the wallet full control.
- This is a one-time, high-value moment.
- Any malicious code only needs to act once.
Users who only used existing wallets may not have triggered this path.
Step 5: Wallet Data Was Sent Externally
When the trigger condition occurred, the code allegedly sent data to an external endpoint:
metrics-trustwallet[.]com
What raised alarms:
- The domain looked a lot like a legitimate Trust Wallet subdomain.
- It was registered only days earlier.
- It was not publicly documented.
- It later went offline.
At least, this confirms unexpected outgoing communication from the wallet extension.
Step 6: Attackers Acted Immediately
Shortly after seed phrase imports, users reported:
- Wallets drained within minutes.
- Multiple assets moved quickly.
- No further user interaction was needed.
On-chain behavior showed:
- Automated transaction patterns.
- Multiple destination addresses.
- No obvious phishing approval flow.
This suggests attackers already had enough access to sign transactions.
Step 7: Funds Were Consolidated Across Addresses
Stolen assets were routed through several attacker-controlled wallets.
Why this matters:
- It suggests coordination or scripting.
- It reduces reliance on a single address.
- It matches behavior seen in organized exploits.
Estimates based on tracked addresses suggest millions of dollars moved, although totals vary.
Step 8: The Domain Went Dark
After attention increased:
- The suspicious domain stopped responding.
- No public explanation followed immediately.
- Screenshots and cached evidence became crucial.
This is consistent with attackers destroying infrastructure once exposed.
Step 9: Official Acknowledgment Came Later
Trust Wallet later confirmed:
- A security incident affected a specific version of the browser extension.
- Mobile users were not affected.
- Users should upgrade or disable the extension.
However, no full technical breakdown was given right away to explain:
- Why the domain existed.
- Whether seed phrases were exposed.
- Whether this was an internal, third-party, or external issue.
This gap fueled ongoing speculation.
What Is Confirmed
- A browser extension update introduced new outgoing behavior.
- Users lost funds shortly after importing seed phrases.
- The incident was limited to a specific version.
- Trust Wallet acknowledged a security issue.
What Is Strongly Suspected
- A supply-chain issue or malicious code injection.
- Seed phrases or signing ability being exposed.
- The analytics logic being misused or weaponized.
What Is Still Unknown
- Whether the code was intentionally malicious or compromised upstream.
- How many users were affected.
- Whether any other data was taken.
- Exact attribution of the attackers.
Why This Incident Matters
This was not typical phishing.
It highlights:
- The danger of browser extensions.
- The risk of blindly trusting updates.
- How analytics code can be misused.
- Why handling seed phrases is the most critical moment in wallet security.
Even a short-lived vulnerability can have serious consequences.
The post TrustWallet Hack Explained: From Update to Wallet Drains worth $4M in $TWT, BTC, ETH appeared first on Live Bitcoin News.
Market Opportunity
Ambire Wallet Price(WALLET)
$0.01993
$0.01993$0.01993
USD
Ambire Wallet (WALLET) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
You May Also Like
Why 100 Percent Test Coverage is Not Possible — Lessons from Testing Banking and Healthcare Systems
Quality is not about testing everything; quality is about testing what is most important.
Share
Hackernoon2025/12/26 16:05
US eyes crypto mining at disputed nuclear plant in Russia-Ukraine conflict: report
The plant is located in Ukraine and has been under Russian control since 2022, with its future management a key issue in peace talks.
Share
Coinstats2025/12/26 18:58
Google's AP2 protocol has been released. Does encrypted AI still have a chance?
Following the MCP and A2A protocols, the AI Agent market has seen another blockbuster arrival: the Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), developed by Google. This will clearly further enhance AI Agents' autonomous multi-tasking capabilities, but the unfortunate reality is that it has little to do with web3AI. Let's take a closer look: What problem does AP2 solve? Simply put, the MCP protocol is like a universal hook, enabling AI agents to connect to various external tools and data sources; A2A is a team collaboration communication protocol that allows multiple AI agents to cooperate with each other to complete complex tasks; AP2 completes the last piece of the puzzle - payment capability. In other words, MCP opens up connectivity, A2A promotes collaboration efficiency, and AP2 achieves value exchange. The arrival of AP2 truly injects "soul" into the autonomous collaboration and task execution of Multi-Agents. Imagine AI Agents connecting Qunar, Meituan, and Didi to complete the booking of flights, hotels, and car rentals, but then getting stuck at the point of "self-payment." What's the point of all that multitasking? So, remember this: AP2 is an extension of MCP+A2A, solving the last mile problem of AI Agent automated execution. What are the technical highlights of AP2? The core innovation of AP2 is the Mandates mechanism, which is divided into real-time authorization mode and delegated authorization mode. Real-time authorization is easy to understand. The AI Agent finds the product and shows it to you. The operation can only be performed after the user signs. Delegated authorization requires the user to set rules in advance, such as only buying the iPhone 17 when the price drops to 5,000. The AI Agent monitors the trigger conditions and executes automatically. The implementation logic is cryptographically signed using Verifiable Credentials (VCs). Users can set complex commission conditions, including price ranges, time limits, and payment method priorities, forming a tamper-proof digital contract. Once signed, the AI Agent executes according to the conditions, with VCs ensuring auditability and security at every step. Of particular note is the "A2A x402" extension, a technical component developed by Google specifically for crypto payments, developed in collaboration with Coinbase and the Ethereum Foundation. This extension enables AI Agents to seamlessly process stablecoins, ETH, and other blockchain assets, supporting native payment scenarios within the Web3 ecosystem. What kind of imagination space can AP2 bring? After analyzing the technical principles, do you think that's it? Yes, in fact, the AP2 is boring when it is disassembled alone. Its real charm lies in connecting and opening up the "MCP+A2A+AP2" technology stack, completely opening up the complete link of AI Agent's autonomous analysis+execution+payment. From now on, AI Agents can open up many application scenarios. For example, AI Agents for stock investment and financial management can help us monitor the market 24/7 and conduct independent transactions. Enterprise procurement AI Agents can automatically replenish and renew without human intervention. AP2's complementary payment capabilities will further expand the penetration of the Agent-to-Agent economy into more scenarios. Google obviously understands that after the technical framework is established, the ecological implementation must be relied upon, so it has brought in more than 60 partners to develop it, almost covering the entire payment and business ecosystem. Interestingly, it also involves major Crypto players such as Ethereum, Coinbase, MetaMask, and Sui. Combined with the current trend of currency and stock integration, the imagination space has been doubled. Is web3 AI really dead? Not entirely. Google's AP2 looks complete, but it only achieves technical compatibility with Crypto payments. It can only be regarded as an extension of the traditional authorization framework and belongs to the category of automated execution. There is a "paradigm" difference between it and the autonomous asset management pursued by pure Crypto native solutions. The Crypto-native solutions under exploration are taking the "decentralized custody + on-chain verification" route, including AI Agent autonomous asset management, AI Agent autonomous transactions (DeFAI), AI Agent digital identity and on-chain reputation system (ERC-8004...), AI Agent on-chain governance DAO framework, AI Agent NPC and digital avatars, and many other interesting and fun directions. Ultimately, once users get used to AI Agent payments in traditional fields, their acceptance of AI Agents autonomously owning digital assets will also increase. And for those scenarios that AP2 cannot reach, such as anonymous transactions, censorship-resistant payments, and decentralized asset management, there will always be a time for crypto-native solutions to show their strength? The two are more likely to be complementary rather than competitive, but to be honest, the key technological advancements behind AI Agents currently all come from web2AI, and web3AI still needs to keep up the good work!
Share
PANews2025/09/18 07:00