🟡 CVE-2025-4021: A vulnerability was found in c... 🟡 CVE-2025-4020: A vulnerability was found in P... 🟡 CVE-2025-32472: The multiScan and picoScan are... 🟡 CVE-2025-4019: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2025-4018: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2025-4017: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-4016: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-4015: A vulnerability was found in 2... 🟡 CVE-2025-4014: A vulnerability was found in P... 🔥 CVE-2025-3200: An unauthenticated remote atta... 🟡 CVE-2025-4013: A vulnerability was found in P... 🟡 CVE-2025-4012: A vulnerability was found in p... 🟡 CVE-2025-4011: A vulnerability has been found... ⚠️ CVE-2025-42598: Multiple SEIKO EPSON printer d... 🟡 CVE-2025-39367: Missing Authorization vulnerab... 🟢 CVE-2025-32471: The device’s passwords have no... ⚠️ CVE-2025-32470: A remote unauthenticated attac... ⚠️ CVE-2025-4007: A vulnerability classified as ... ⚠️ CVE-2025-22235: EndpointRequest.to() creates a... 🟡 CVE-2025-4006: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-4005: A vulnerability was found in P... 🟡 CVE-2025-4004: A vulnerability was found in P... 🟡 CVE-2025-4003: A vulnerability was found in R... 🟡 CVE-2025-4002: A vulnerability was found in R... 🟡 CVE-2025-4001: A vulnerability has been found... 🟡 CVE-2025-4000: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2025-3999: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2025-3998: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-3997: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-3996: A vulnerability was found in T... 🟡 CVE-2025-3706: The eHRMS from 104 Corporation... 🟡 CVE-2025-3995: A vulnerability was found in T... 🟡 CVE-2025-3994: A vulnerability was found in T... ⚠️ CVE-2025-3993: A vulnerability was found in T... ⚠️ CVE-2025-3992: A vulnerability has been found... ⚠️ CVE-2025-3991: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2025-31144: Quick Agent V3 and Quick Agent... ⚠️ CVE-2025-27937: Quick Agent V3 and Quick Agent... 🔥 CVE-2025-26692: Quick Agent V3 and Quick Agent... ⚠️ CVE-2025-3990: A vulnerability, which was cla... ⚠️ CVE-2025-3989: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-46690: Ververica Platform 2.14.0 allo... 🟡 CVE-2025-46689: Ververica Platform 2.14.0 cont... ⚠️ CVE-2025-3988: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-3987: A vulnerability was found in T... 🟡 CVE-2025-3986: A vulnerability was found in A... 🟡 CVE-2025-3985: A vulnerability was found in A... 🟡 CVE-2025-46688: quickjs-ng through 0.9.0 has a... 🟡 CVE-2025-46687: quickjs-ng through 0.9.0 has a... 🟢 CVE-2025-3984: A vulnerability was found in A... 🟡 CVE-2025-3983: A vulnerability has been found... 🟡 CVE-2025-3982: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2025-3981: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟢 CVE-2025-2866: Improper Verification of Crypt... 🟡 CVE-2025-3980: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-3979: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-3978: A vulnerability was found in d... 🟡 CVE-2025-3977: A vulnerability was found in i... ⚠️ CVE-2025-46657: Karaz Karazal through 2025-04-... 🟡 CVE-2025-3976: A vulnerability was found in P... 🟡 CVE-2025-3975: A vulnerability was found in S... 🟡 CVE-2025-3974: A vulnerability has been found... 🟡 CVE-2025-3973: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2025-3972: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2025-3971: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-3970: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-3969: A vulnerability was found in c... 🟡 CVE-2025-3968: A vulnerability was found in c... 🟡 CVE-2025-3967: A vulnerability was found in i... 🟡 CVE-2025-3886: An issue in CatoNetworks CatoC... 🟡 CVE-2025-3966: A vulnerability was found in i... 🟡 CVE-2025-3965: A vulnerability has been found... 🟡 CVE-2025-3964: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2025-3963: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2024-52888: For an authenticated end-user ... 🟢 CVE-2024-52887: Authenticated end-user may set... 🟡 CVE-2025-3962: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-3961: A vulnerability classified as ... 🟡 CVE-2025-3960: A vulnerability was found in w... 🟡 CVE-2025-3959: A vulnerability was found in w... 🟡 CVE-2025-3958: A vulnerability was found in w... 🟡 CVE-2025-3957: A vulnerability was found in o... 🟡 CVE-2025-3956: A vulnerability has been found... ⚠️ CVE-2025-46580: There is a code-related vulner... ⚠️ CVE-2025-46579: There is a DDE injection vulne... 🟡 CVE-2025-46578: There are SQL injection vulner... 🟡 CVE-2025-46577: There is a SQL injection vulne... 🟡 CVE-2025-46576: There is a Permission Manageme... 🟡 CVE-2025-46575: There is an information disclo... 🟡 CVE-2025-46574: There is an information disclo... 🟢 CVE-2025-46675: In NASA CryptoLib before 1.3.2... 🟢 CVE-2025-46674: NASA CryptoLib before 1.3.2 us... 🟡 CVE-2025-46673: NASA CryptoLib before 1.3.2 do... 🟢 CVE-2025-46672: NASA CryptoLib before 1.3.2 do... 🟡 CVE-2025-3955: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟢 CVE-2025-46656: python-markdownify (aka markdo... 🟡 CVE-2025-3954: A vulnerability, which was cla... 🟡 CVE-2025-46655: CodiMD through 2.5.4 has a CSP... 🟡 CVE-2025-46654: CodiMD through 2.2.0 has a CSP... 🟢 CVE-2025-46653: Formidable (aka node-formidabl...
The $308 Million Bitcoin Heist: A Deep Dive into the DMM Bitcoin Hack

The $308 Million Bitcoin Heist: A Deep Dive into the DMM Bitcoin Hack

In May 2024, the cryptocurrency world was rocked by a massive security breach involving DMM Bitcoin, a prominent Japanese crypto exchange. Hackers managed to siphon off 4,502.9 Bitcoin, valued at approximately $308 million at the time, marking one of the largest crypto heists in recent history.

The Attack Unveiled

The breach was detected on May 31, 2024, when DMM Bitcoin reported an "unauthorized leak" of Bitcoin from its wallets. The company promptly suspended several services, including Bitcoin withdrawals, spot trading, and the opening of new leveraged positions, to prevent further losses. Despite the severity of the attack, DMM Bitcoin assured its users that all customer deposits would be fully reimbursed, complying with Japanese regulations that mandate the separation of corporate and user funds.

Modus Operandi: Social Engineering at Play

Investigations by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Police Agency of Japan revealed that the perpetrators employed sophisticated social engineering tactics. In March 2024, an employee at Ginco, a Japanese cryptocurrency wallet software company, was approached by an individual posing as a recruiter on LinkedIn. Under the guise of a pre-employment test, the employee was persuaded to download a malicious Python script hosted on GitHub. This script compromised the employee's system, granting the attackers unauthorized access to Ginco's wallet management infrastructure.

By mid-May, the hackers exploited session cookies to impersonate the compromised employee, enabling them to infiltrate Ginco's unencrypted communication systems. This access allowed them to manipulate legitimate transaction requests, culminating in the unauthorized transfer of 4,502.9 Bitcoin from DMM Bitcoin's reserves.

Attribution to North Korean Actors

The FBI and Japanese authorities have attributed the heist to a North Korean cybercrime group known as "TraderTraitor," also referred to as Jade Sleet, UNC4899, and Slow Pisces. This group has a notorious history of targeting entities within the cryptocurrency sector, often employing social engineering techniques to infiltrate organizations and deploy malware-laden cryptocurrency applications.

Aftermath and Industry Implications

In the wake of the attack, DMM Bitcoin announced its decision to cease operations, citing the insurmountable impact of the breach. This incident underscores the persistent vulnerabilities within the cryptocurrency ecosystem, particularly concerning social engineering attacks that exploit human factors rather than technical flaws.

As of December 2024, the cryptocurrency industry has suffered losses exceeding $1.5 billion due to hacking incidents, reflecting a 17% decrease from the previous year. Nonetheless, the DMM Bitcoin heist serves as a stark reminder of the evolving tactics employed by cybercriminals and the imperative for robust security measures and heightened vigilance within the crypto community.

Conclusion

The $308 million theft from DMM Bitcoin highlights the critical need for comprehensive security protocols that encompass both technological defenses and employee awareness training. As cyber threats continue to evolve, the cryptocurrency industry must adopt a proactive stance to safeguard assets and maintain user trust in an increasingly digital financial landscape.

Sources

Back to Posts