Data Leak? Crypto.com Fires Back At ‘Unfounded’ Allegations

bitcoinistPublished on 2025-09-22Last updated on 2025-09-22

Abstract

According to Bloomberg and several other news outlets, Crypto.com has pushed back against a report that a 2023 breach exposed...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

According to Bloomberg and several other news outlets, Crypto.com has pushed back against a report that a 2023 breach exposed user details and was kept from authorities.

The story centers on a hacking group known as Scattered Spider and a young suspect who, according to reports, used phishing and social engineering to access an employee account. Crypto.com says the claims that it hid the incident are “unfounded.”

Company Statement And Regulators

Crypto.com’s leadership has said the incident was reported to regulators at the time. CEO Kris Marszalek and company spokespeople told reporters that the breach affected a “very small number of individuals,” involved limited personally identifiable information (PII), and did not put customer funds at risk.

Based on reports, the firm says it notified US regulators and relevant jurisdictional authorities about the matter in 2023. The company called any suggestion of a cover-up misinformation.

Crypto.com: What Reporters Found About The Hack

Bloomberg’s investigation names Scattered Spider and one alleged member, 18-year-old Noah Urban, as central to the operation. Reports say the attackers used social engineering and phishing to trick an employee into giving access, and that the intrusion happened sometime before early 2023.

Multiple outlets repeated Bloomberg’s account, while some pieces added details about the group’s past campaigns against major companies. Crypto.com confirmed a limited breach but disputed claims that the company intentionally withheld the event from regulators.

As of today, the market cap of cryptocurrencies stood at $3.83 trillion. Chart: TradingView

Critics And Investigators React

On-chain investigator ZachXBT publicly criticized Crypto.com after the reporting, arguing the exchange should have made the incident public and notified affected users directly.

Other security watchers said the crypto industry needs clearer standards about when exchanges must disclose breaches to the public versus regulators. Reports have disclosed conflicting timelines about when regulators were told and when any affected customers were informed, leaving several questions unsettled.

Unanswered Questions And Immediate Impact

The number of users affected remains unknown, and the exact data fields involved — passport scans, phone numbers, or email addresses — have not been detailed in public documents.

Crypto.com maintains that no funds were taken. No independent forensic reports or full third-party audits confirming the scope have been made public.

That lack of clarity has prompted calls from the community for greater transparency and formal confirmation from outside experts.

Featured image from Woden Valley Plumbing, chart from TradingView

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Christian, a journalist and editor with leadership roles in Philippine and Canadian media, is fueled by his love for writing and cryptocurrency. Off-screen, he's a cook and cinephile who's constantly intrigued by the size of the universe.

Related Reads

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

An article compares the core architectural philosophies of WeChat and Telegram, highlighting fundamental differences in data storage, monetization, and developer ecosystems. **Data Storage:** Telegram offers unlimited, synchronized cloud storage for seamless access across all devices. In contrast, WeChat stores chat history locally on each device, requiring a manual migration process for transfer and tethering desktop sessions to an active smartphone. **Features & Ecosystem:** Telegram's open Bot API allows for easy, free bot creation, while WeChat's massive ecosystem of over 4.8 million "mini-programs" operates within a closed, curated, and more regulated platform. Commenting also differs: Telegram uses integrated discussion threads for channels, whereas WeChat relies on pre-moderated comments for official accounts and separate chats for interaction. **File Sharing & Payments:** Telegram supports large file transfers (up to 4GB for Premium), while WeChat limits most files to 200MB. A key divergence is in payments: WeChat Pay is deeply integrated into daily life and commerce in China, whereas Telegram lacks a comparable built-in fiat payment system, focusing instead on third-party bots and crypto. **Analysis:** The comparison reveals two distinct models: WeChat is a tightly integrated, closed ecosystem deeply embedded in the real economy, while Telegram prioritizes open protocols, flexible data handling, and low barriers for developers. An added perspective notes that WeChat's fusion of messaging and payments in a single interface without end-to-end encryption for chats potentially broadens the attack surface, raising security questions as more functions converge.

cryptonews.ru9m ago

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

cryptonews.ru9m ago

Hacker Leaks GTA6 and Launches a Token: Leaked Videos Become Ad Space for $CYBERLEEK, Must Buy Tokens to Vote for Next Clip

A hacker group called "CyberLeek" has leaked gameplay footage of the highly anticipated video game *GTA 6*, which is slated for release in 2026. Simultaneously, the group launched a meme token, $CYBERLEEK, on Solana. The leaks, which include maps and gameplay clips, are heavily watermarked with advertisements urging viewers to buy the token. Investigations of blockchain data reveal that the token was created and funded from a single wallet approximately eight hours before the first leak was released, suggesting a coordinated plan. The group has implemented a voting system where token holders can "vote" for the next type of content to be leaked by sending $CYBERLEEK tokens to a designated wallet—a process that permanently transfers the tokens to the hackers. This creates a self-sustaining cycle where interest in the leaks drives token purchases. Financially, the operation involved minimal upfront costs (less than $3,500 in out-of-pocket expenses) but generated significant revenue. On its first day, the token saw $15 million in trading volume, netting the creators an estimated $30,000 from transaction fees alone. While the group later burned a large portion of its developer-held tokens (worth over $1 million) to build trust, the fee-generating mechanism remains intact. The game's publisher, Take-Two Interactive, has initiated legal proceedings to identify the hackers. Despite this, the case demonstrates a new model where leaked intellectual property is used as leverage to promote and profit from a cryptocurrency, with meme token markets serving as an additional revenue stream.

marsbit2h ago

Hacker Leaks GTA6 and Launches a Token: Leaked Videos Become Ad Space for $CYBERLEEK, Must Buy Tokens to Vote for Next Clip

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片