韩国最大交易所 Upbit 爆发安全危机:4 点 42 分的攻击、被盗 3,000 万美金,真相曝光!

marsbitPublished on 2025-11-27Last updated on 2025-11-28

前言

11 月 27 日凌晨 4 点 42 分,韩国最大加密货币交易所 Upbit 突发安全事件,其 Solana 链上热钱包遭黑客攻击,大量资产被非法转移。

这一事件发生在 Upbit 运营方 Dunamu 与 Naver Financial 宣布合并计划的同一天,引发了市场对加密货币交易所安全性的广泛担忧。

Upbit

事件概况

根据 Upbit 运营公司 Dunamu 发布的官方声明,这起黑客攻击发生在 11 月 27 日凌晨 4 点 42 分。

异常活动被检测到后,Upbit 立即暂停了所有虚拟资产的存入和提取服务,并展开了全面的安全审查。

Dunamu 首席执行官 Oh Kyung-seok 在向客户发布的通知中确认了这起事件,并强调公司将动用自有资金全额补偿用户损失。

此次攻击目标明确,专门针对 Upbit 在 Solana 网络上的资产,涉及多种基于 Solana 的代币

Upbit

损失金额

关于本次攻击造成的损失规模,不同来源提供了略有差异的数据。

事件初期披露被盗金额约 540 亿韩元(折合 3680 万美元),涉及 SOL、BONK、JUP 等多种 Solana 生态代币。后续 Upbit 修正损失为 445 亿韩元(约 3043 万美元),并成功冻结部分关联资产(约 157 万美元)。

目前官方尚未披露具体攻击漏洞与被盗细节,仅透露黑客将资产转移至未授权外部钱包,平台已紧急将剩余资产转移至冷钱包。

相比之下,Upbit 在 2019 年遭受的黑客攻击导致了 340,000 枚 ETH 被盗,当时价值约 580 亿韩元。

安全漏洞与对比

据推测,攻击者可能获取了 Upbit 负责 Solana 生态热钱包的私钥权限,或者是签名服务器遭到了直接控制。

这使得黑客能够对该钱包下的所有 SPL 代币进行“清空式”转移,而非仅仅针对某一种代币。

Upbit 回应称,攻击仅发生在其运营的“热钱包”上,公司的冷钱包未出现安全漏洞或资产被盗情况。

作为应对措施,Upbit 已成功冻结了部分被盗资产,其中约 2.3 亿韩元的 Solayer 代币已被冻结。

结语

Upbit 事件再次敲响警钟:安全管理永无止境。零时科技安全团队提醒所有交易所与项目方,必须建立纵深防御体系——热钱包实施严格限额并采用多签机制,私钥存储务必脱离联网环境,核心业务系统需进行定期的安全审计与攻防演练。同时,我们建议普通用户将大额资产存入自管的冷钱包,仅保留少量资金于交易所。安全无小事,零时科技安全团队将持续通过威胁情报与漏洞研究,为行业构筑坚实的安全防线。

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

After Aave's Exit and TVL's Sharp Fluctuation, Where Does MegaETH's Valuation Anchor Lie?

Following the withdrawal of Aave and a sharp drop in its Total Value Locked (TVL), the valuation of the high-performance DeFi blockchain MegaETH faces scrutiny. Once a highly anticipated project with a fully diluted valuation (FDV) reaching around $2 billion, MegaETH saw its TVL plummet from a May peak of $245 million to just over $30 million in July, a roughly 70% decline. Its native token, MEGA, currently trades around $0.048 with a market cap of approximately $54 million and an FDV of about $480 million. The report identifies a core vulnerability: MegaETH's TVL was heavily dependent on a single protocol, Aave V3, which at its peak contributed around 90% of the chain's TVL. A significant portion of this capital is attributed to leveraged yield-farming strategies involving stablecoins like USDe. When the profitability of these strategies diminished, capital rapidly exited, exposing the lack of diversified, sustainable activity. Three key mismatches between MegaETH's valuation and its fundamentals are highlighted: 1. **Valuation vs. Real Usage:** With an FDV of ~$4.8B but only ~$1M in annualized protocol revenue and ~2,600 daily active addresses, the valuation appears disconnected from current economic activity. 2. **Token Narrative vs. Ecosystem Reality:** Despite its DeFi narrative, nearly 80% of the chain's recent protocol revenue comes from a trading card game, Monster, not from core DeFi applications like Aave. The chain's native stablecoin, USDM, also shows low trading volume and a declining market cap. 3. **Short-Term Hype vs. Long-Term Delivery:** Initial hype from token generation, blue-chip integrations, and influencer support has faded. Major protocols like Uniswap now hold minimal TVL on the chain, indicating that early capital was largely transient and driven by incentives rather than organic demand. The situation reflects a broader market trend where investors are becoming less tolerant of valuations based on inflated TVL and narrative, demanding clearer evidence of sustainable transactions, revenue, and ecosystem development. While MEGA's price may experience short-term rebounds from market sentiment, a fundamental re-rating likely depends on the team's ability to convert its remaining resources into tangible, user-retaining applications and genuine ecosystem growth.

链捕手5h ago

After Aave's Exit and TVL's Sharp Fluctuation, Where Does MegaETH's Valuation Anchor Lie?

链捕手5h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of SOL (SOL) are presented below.

活动图片