Polymarket to reimburse users after third-party compromise triggers $3M phishing attack

ambcryptoPublicado em 2026-06-25Última atualização em 2026-06-25

Resumo

Prediction market platform Polymarket will fully reimburse users after a security breach on June 25. A compromised third-party vendor injected malicious code into Polymarket's frontend, leading to a phishing attack that targeted users interacting with the platform during a specific window. Blockchain security firm PeckShield estimates the attack drained approximately $3 million in PUSD from over 11 wallets. The stolen funds were bridged from Polygon to Ethereum and converted into roughly 1,893 ETH. Polymarket has contained the incident, removed the affected dependency, and is contacting impacted users for full refunds. The platform's underlying smart contracts were not compromised. No detailed postmortem or reimbursement timeline has been provided.

Prediction market platform Polymarket says it will fully reimburse affected users after a compromised third-party vendor injected malicious code into its frontend. This exposed some users to a phishing attack that blockchain security researchers estimate drained nearly $3 million.

In a statement published on June 25, Polymarket said it discovered the compromised vendor earlier in the day, removed the affected dependency, and contained the incident. The company added that it is contacting impacted users and will refund them in full.

The incident appears to have affected only users who interacted with the compromised frontend during the attack window rather than the platform’s underlying smart contracts.

Third-party compromise injected malicious script

According to Polymarket, the attack originated from a compromised third-party vendor that injected a malicious script into parts of the platform’s frontend.

The company said it has since removed the affected dependency and contained the incident. However, it has not disclosed the identity of the compromised vendor or released a detailed technical postmortem.

The platform emphasized that it is working directly with affected users while continuing its investigation.

Security firms estimate nearly $3M in losses

Blockchain security firm PeckShield reported that the incident appeared to be a phishing campaign targeting Polymarket users.

According to their findings, attackers drained approximately $3 million worth of PUSD from more than 11 victim wallets before bridging the stolen funds from Polygon to Ethereum.

The researchers said the attacker subsequently exchanged the proceeds for roughly 1,893 ETH, consolidating the assets into a monitored Ethereum address.

Polymarket has not publicly confirmed the estimated losses or the number of affected wallets.

Platform promises full reimbursement

Unlike many phishing incidents that leave users responsible for losses, Polymarket said it intends to reimburse everyone affected by the attack.

The company said it is contacting impacted users directly while continuing to investigate the compromise.

No timeline has been provided for either the reimbursement process or the publication of a full incident report.


Final Summary

  • Polymarket says a compromised third-party vendor injected malicious code into its frontend and has pledged to reimburse affected users.
  • Security researchers estimate the phishing campaign stole roughly $3 million before the funds were bridged to Ethereum and converted into ETH.

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat was the cause of the phishing attack on Polymarket users?

AThe attack was caused by a compromised third-party vendor that injected a malicious script into parts of Polymarket's frontend.

QHow much money did the attackers steal according to blockchain security researchers?

AAccording to blockchain security researchers, the attackers stole approximately $3 million worth of PUSD.

QWhat action did Polymarket take after discovering the compromised vendor?

AAfter discovering the compromised vendor, Polymarket removed the affected dependency, contained the incident, and pledged to fully reimburse affected users.

QDid the incident affect the platform's underlying smart contracts?

ANo, the incident appears to have affected only users who interacted with the compromised frontend during the attack window, not the platform's underlying smart contracts.

QWhat did the attackers do with the stolen funds after the phishing attack?

AThe attackers bridged the stolen funds from Polygon to Ethereum and exchanged the proceeds for roughly 1,893 ETH, consolidating the assets into a monitored Ethereum address.

Leituras Relacionadas

A New 'Ghost Story' in Storage: Is the US Going to Grab Money?

The article discusses a potential new phase in US-Korea semiconductor relations, shifting from pressure to build factories in the US to demands for profit-sharing. Citing the *Korea Times*, it reports that a US trade official allegedly claimed the US has a right to share in the massive profits of South Korean chipmakers Samsung and SK Hynix, arguing that purchases by American companies directly drive their earnings. While unconfirmed by US authorities, the claim has caused concern in Korea. The context is Korea's surging semiconductor exports to the US and the dominant profitability of its memory chipmakers in the global AI supply chain. Analysis from CITIC Securities draws historical parallels, noting that sustained high profits or market share by foreign firms in key industries have often triggered US political intervention to redistribute global industrial benefits, as seen with Japanese semiconductors in the 1980s and Taiwanese panels in the 2000s. Currently, the primary US focus remains securing AI-related memory supply and encouraging Korean investment in US manufacturing. Systemic political pressure to curb Korean profits is not yet evident. However, the report warns the risk could materialize if continued price increases start squeezing the profits and competitiveness of American companies. Key signals to watch would be if US tech giants publicly oppose price hikes or if US policymakers reframe the issue around anti-competitive practices. The official's reported remarks are seen as an early sign that the battleground in US-Korea chip rivalry may be extending to the division of profits.

marsbitHá 13m

A New 'Ghost Story' in Storage: Is the US Going to Grab Money?

marsbitHá 13m

Trading

Spot
活动图片