NFT交易平台被盗事件背后的攻与守

WebX实验室Publicado a 2022-02-25Actualizado a 2022-03-03

Resumen

黑客攻击不止是区块链产业的特例,它将伴随全产业长期存在,任何赛道都将处于高度戒备状态。

加密圈的盗窃案已经不是新鲜事,甚至是平常事。最近,关于OpenSea交易平台被盗事件闹的沸沸扬扬,虽然自查的结果定论为外部攻击,而非平台系统性问题,但近300万美金资产损失已成定局,据 DappRadar 的数据显示,在黑客事件后,OpenSea上的用户活动迅速下降,平台上的用户活动至少下降了20%。那么,在一次次被盗事件发生的背后,是否有防范未然的措施可以采取?
安全认知深刻  防范却后知后觉
被黑客攻击的重灾区非常具有指向性,即充斥着大量资产交易体量的“当红赛道”,这已经成了黑客们的默契选择。就在本月初,一位NFT收藏家发推称自己的所有NFT头像被盗,价值高达1800万,希望寻求交易平台的帮助,针对此安全事件,OpenSea平台仅能对该藏主的地址和相关NFT进行了加红标记。而类似这样的被盗事件还有很多,很多用户表示,在自己毫无安全预警的情况下黑客就轻松实现了资产转移,黑客得手仿佛轻而易举。

黑客


借鉴行业内因盗窃案导致破产的事件教训,平台深知安全的重要性。但综合来看,整体行业的安全系数偏低。合约漏洞、交易漏洞等问题屡见不鲜,尽管平台搭配尽可能多的安全防范手段,持续进行例行的安全漏洞补丁,但被盗惨案似乎防不胜防,平台和用户承受着巨大的资金和信任损失,也只能在调取事件因果后进行攻击技术分析,意图通过总结相应的安全防范手段,提高行业的安全防线。不幸的是,有些漏洞错误仍旧低级,成功于钻空子或见招拆招,黑客的攻击手段也变得更多样。
黑客攻击手段有哪些?
黑客攻击不止是区块链产业的特例,它将伴随全产业长期存在,任何赛道都将处于高度戒备状态。而作为其中的参与者,我们可以对黑客攻击手段做一个简单了解,做到知己知彼。以下简单介绍几个经常出现的类型:漏洞攻击、钓鱼攻击、量子攻击。
漏洞攻击是黑客们常用的手段,也是系统自身安全性不足引发的安全事件。漏洞又可以分为不同的形式。一种是逻辑漏洞,在去年的闪电贷攻击获利就是利用了资产流转的逻辑漏洞,空手套白狼式套利,令不法分子屡试不爽。一种是安全漏洞,即黑客扫描到区块链协议、智能合约机制、节点设备漏洞等安全缺陷,发起攻击。
钓鱼攻击,即外部来源的恶意攻击,本次OpenSea安全事件就是典型钓鱼攻击。通俗解释来说,就是用户外部点击了带有病毒或授权的信息,使得自己的信息暴露,又或者未分辨内容真假、受利益诱惑影响,导致事故的发生。就OpenSea解释说,本次事件是黑客趁着 OpenSea 合约升级之时,给所有用户的邮箱发送了一封钓鱼邮件,而不少用户错把其当作官方邮件而将自己的钱包授权,进而导致钱包被盗。
量子攻击,伴随量子计算机的出现,威胁性巨大,包括摩根大通等都在研究相关的抗量子攻击方案。值得关注的是,区块链是最容易受量子攻击的地带,黑客通过破解区块链关键构件加密算法和数字签名,不危言耸听地说,量子攻击对任何涉及公钥的安全都构成风险。伴随量子硬件的发展,行业应该高度关注量子计算和密码学的发展,意识到量子攻击可能带来的危险,在今天就采取行动。
平台的外援和用户的心智
尽管黑客攻击屡屡发生,给行业带来了巨大的打击,但在恶的反面是网络安全公司的越发壮大。来源于网络消息,全球信息安全和风险管理最终用户支出将以9.2%的五年复合年增长率增长,预计在2022年将达到1745亿美元,无疑,此类公司已经成为NFT平台升维网络安全的重要抓手。
客观情况来看,目前针对区块链的专业网络安全公司还在少数,主要还是来源于互联网赛道的安全服务。最近,网络安全服务商ERMProtect宣布将提供加密货币合规服务,IBM的X-Force Red推出区块链网络安全服务,区块链网络安全公司Sollensys推出了数据安全产品SollensiumTM 。与此同时,平台相关的链上安全产品合作也陆续开展,OpenSea平台曾表示正和第三方钱包服务一起“帮助用户更好地识别恶意签名请求,并采取其它措施帮助用户更有效地阻击诈骗和钓鱼攻击”。不久前,受某安全公司提醒,OpenSea及时修复安全漏洞,规避了潜在的危险发生。
总之,威胁行业健康的黑客只能是人人喊打的角色,在种种经历中,不止是平台,作为用户更要有一种危机意识。及时设置双重身份认证,进行产品的升级,使用安全系数更高的钱包设备,都可以尽可能降低盗窃案的发生。

Lecturas Relacionadas

From Sand to Chips: Hefei's Semiconductor Alchemy

From Sand to Chips: Hefei's Semiconductor "Alchemy" On July 27, 2026, a memory chip maker from Hefei made history by surpassing the market capitalization of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China on its Shanghai Stock Exchange debut. This marks the culmination of Hefei's two-decade industrial transformation, often summarized in three strategic leaps: "Screen, Chip, Vehicle." The journey began in 2008 with a bold investment in BOE, establishing China's first 6th-generation LCD panel line. The second leap was the "Project 506" in 2016, which gave birth to ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT). With initial backing of 14.4 billion RMB from Hefei's state-owned investment platform, CXMT aimed to break into the global DRAM market, then over 95% controlled by three overseas giants. CXMT achieved a breakthrough in 2019 by producing China's first 8GB DDR4 DRAM chip, employing "generational leapfrog" R&D to catch up. After years of significant losses, the company turned profitable in 2025. A dramatic surge followed in 2026, driven by AI-driven demand and full capacity utilization, propelling CXMT to become the world's fourth-largest DRAM manufacturer. CXMT's success is not isolated. It anchors a dense, localized semiconductor ecosystem in Hefei. Within its vicinity are numerous supporting companies for equipment, materials, and packaging & testing. This cluster has fueled the regional economy, with Hefei's integrated circuit industry output growing over sevenfold between 2016 and 2025. The ripple effects extend beyond high-tech, revitalizing local communities with new businesses and services catering to the influx of workers. For individuals, Hefei offers competitive tech salaries at a significantly lower cost of living compared to major coastal cities, along with improved amenities and shorter commutes. Hefei's story demonstrates two decades of focused, long-term industrial policy, transforming the city from a provincial capital into a trillion-RMB GDP "Double Ten-Thousand" city (10 million people, 1 trillion RMB GDP). It shows how persistence in strategic sectors—turning sand into chips—can redefine a city's economic destiny.

marsbitHace 7 min(s)

From Sand to Chips: Hefei's Semiconductor Alchemy

marsbitHace 7 min(s)

Some Go Bankrupt, Others Go Shopping: The Counter-Cyclical Acquisition Logic of MoonPay, Circle, and Kraken

During a period of market stress where multiple crypto firms filed for bankruptcy or shut down, three major companies—MoonPay, Circle, and Kraken—pursued strategic acquisitions to strengthen their positions. Their divergent strategies reflect differing dependencies on key unresolved industry questions: which trading platforms, public blockchains, and stablecoins will ultimately dominate. MoonPay, operating at the fiat-crypto gateway, acquired Glide to expand its capabilities in token swaps, cross-chain operations, and financial reconciliation. Its business model is not tied to any single blockchain or stablecoin, allowing it to profit from user activity across various platforms. Circle, facing competitive pressure from the new Open Dollar Standard (OUSD) which could erode its core revenue from USDC reserve interest, acquired nearly a thousand patents from IBM. This move aims to build a competitive moat around USDC by enhancing its enterprise infrastructure, banking integrations, and compliance tools, shifting competition beyond mere interest yields. Kraken acquired Magic Labs' wallet-as-a-service business to deepen its integrated trading platform. The goal is to create a seamless "universal account" where users can trade crypto, stocks, and tokenized assets without leaving Kraken's ecosystem, while also bolstering its own layer-2 blockchain, Ink. These acquisitions highlight a trend where leading firms are consolidating core infrastructure not just for immediate profits, but to secure their futures amid ongoing industry consolidation and uncertainty. The competitive battleground is shifting from basic infrastructure access to superior product integration and ecosystem scale.

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

Some Go Bankrupt, Others Go Shopping: The Counter-Cyclical Acquisition Logic of MoonPay, Circle, and Kraken

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

The Permanent Underclass: No One Can Answer That 17-Year-Old Child

The article "The Permanent Underclass: No One Has an Answer for That 17-Year-Old" explores the concept of a "permanent underclass" emerging in a future where AI can perform most cognitive and physical labor. This theory, gaining traction in tech circles, suggests that as AI reduces the need for human workers, wages lose importance, and wealth increasingly flows to those who own AI models, compute, and data. The core issue is not temporary poverty but the potential breakdown of the traditional ladder of upward mobility—through labor, bargaining, and asset accumulation—making "underclass" a permanent status. The piece highlights a poignant question posed by researcher Jasmine Sun to AI lab personnel: What advice would you give a typical 17-year-old facing this future? Most had no answer, acknowledging the frightening transition ahead. However, while struggling to advise others, many in the AI field are securing their own positions, shifting from research or policy into labs to gain equity and stand on the "capital" side. This creates a vicious cycle: the more people believe labor's bargaining power is vanishing, the fewer work to rebuild it, accelerating its decline. Common personal survival strategies—learning AI skills, acquiring AI company equity, or pivoting to hands-on, in-person work—are analyzed. The author argues these are largely stopgaps, accessible mainly to the privileged, and may collectively undermine labor's overall position. The fundamental question shifts from "how not to fall behind" to "why must one's survival depend on being needed by capital?" The article concludes that the real solution is not individual adaptation but building a new societal "negotiating table"—new laws, forms of collective bargaining, or redistribution mechanisms (like taxes or public funds) to ensure the wealth AI creates is shared, especially with those displaced. It contrasts tentative institutional responses in China with a potential regulatory vacuum in the US, warning that without such frameworks being established before public frustration boils over, social unrest could follow. The 17-year-old’s dilemma underscores a systemic failure: the architects of this future are buying personal insurance but offering no collective answers.

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

The Permanent Underclass: No One Can Answer That 17-Year-Old Child

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片