SwapNet Exploit Drains $17M, Exposes DeFi Approval Risks

TheNewsCrypto發佈於 2026-01-26更新於 2026-01-26

文章摘要

A significant security breach occurred at DEX aggregator SwapNet, resulting in a loss of approximately $16.8 million. The exploit was first identified by security firm PeckShield. The attacker swapped $10.5 million in USDC for Ether on Base network and bridged the funds to Ethereum. The vulnerability stemmed from users disabling the "One-Time Approval" feature designed to restrict token permissions. By doing so, they inadvertently granted direct and persistent approvals to underlying contracts, including SwapNet’s router, which the attacker exploited. Matcha Meta, the meta-DEX aggregator through which SwapNet was accessed, clarified that the issue did not originate from its core system but from this user configuration choice. SwapNet paused its contracts to mitigate further damage and investigate the incident. Users were urged to revoke approvals granted outside the One-Time Approval framework, especially for SwapNet’s router. The event underscores a critical DeFi trade-off: one-time approvals enhance security but add friction, while unlimited approvals improve usability but create persistent risk if a platform is compromised. This incident is part of a broader pattern of exploits targeting unverified code and standing approvals, highlighting ongoing risks in DeFi’s interconnected ecosystem. SwapNet has not yet released a technical post-mortem or confirmed user compensation.

A massive smart contract hack has been identified in the on-chain DEX aggregator SwapNet, which resulted in crypto assets to the tune of close to $16.8 million being siphoned off.

Peck Shield, a security company, first reported the attack, noting the suspicious action on the platform’s SwapNet integrations, which can be found through Matcha Meta, a meta-Dex aggregator platform that the 0x team designed. On the Base network, the hacker swapped $10.5 million in USDC tokens for approximately 3,655 Ether. The attacker then bridged the funds to the Ethereum network, which can be complicated to track and trace.

Matcha Meta explained, however, that the bug didn’t even emanate from its primary stack. The issue for users began with them disabling 0x’s own feature, called “One-Time Approval,” which is designed to restrict tokens’ permissions. In disabling this, users inadvertently allowed approvals directly, rather than restricting them, even for underlying aggregator contracts like SwapNet’s router, which is used by this attacker.

Matcha Meta recognized this publicly and stated that it had collaborated with the SwapNet team. SwapNet had paused the smart contracts to contain the damage and identify the exploit path for their investigation.

Approval settings under scrutiny

The platform urged users to immediately revoke approvals granted outside the One-Time Approval framework. It highlighted SwapNet’s router contract as a priority target for revocation. Without intervention, wallets would have remained exposed even after the exploit stopped.

This situation highlights an important trade-off inherent in DeFi applications. With One-Time Approvals, each transaction must be separately authorized. This, of course, helps with reduced permissions but also introduces friction. By contrast, Unlimited approvals facilitate smooth trading but grant contracts persistent access to funds. When attackers compromise a contract, those standing permissions become a direct risk.

SwapNet has not yet published a detailed technical post-mortem. The team also has not confirmed whether it will compensate affected users. That lack of clarity adds pressure on aggregator platforms to improve transparency and tighten integration standards.

Broader pattern of smart contract risks

The SwapNet exploit has not happened in a vacuum. In fact, on the same day, a different Ethereum exploit was spotted by Pashov, a security auditor, where about 37 WBTC, valued at over $3.1 million, was stolen. The exploit targeted a closed-source and unverified code deployed just weeks earlier. In fact, this code exposed the bytecode only, and it was difficult to evaluate it easily.

All of these attacks create a sense of a topological threat landscape on DeFi protocols, specifically around unverified codes, continuous token approvals, and complex routing layers connecting various protocols. Clearly, in spite of improved audits and better tools, threat actors continue to leverage design optimization and integration blind spots.

As DeFi grows more interconnected, developers must harden approval systems and reduce hidden trust assumptions. Meanwhile, users must actively manage permissions and understand the security implications of convenience features. The SwapNet exploit shows that small configuration choices can have multi-million-dollar consequences.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Japan Targets First Crypto ETFs Approval by 2028

Tagscrypto securityDeFiDEXOnchainSmart Contract

相關問答

QWhat was the total amount of crypto assets drained in the SwapNet exploit?

AClose to $16.8 million (or $17 million) in crypto assets was drained.

QWhich security company first reported the SwapNet attack and on which platform's integrations was the suspicious action noted?

APeckShield first reported the attack, noting the suspicious action on the platform's SwapNet integrations, which can be found through Matcha Meta.

QWhat specific user action, related to a 0x feature, inadvertently allowed the vulnerability to be exploited?

AUsers disabling the 'One-Time Approval' feature, which is designed to restrict tokens' permissions, inadvertently allowed direct and persistent approvals.

QAccording to the article, what is the critical trade-off between 'One-Time Approvals' and 'Unlimited Approvals' in DeFi?

AOne-Time Approvals reduce permissions but introduce friction by requiring separate authorization for each transaction, while Unlimited Approvals facilitate smooth trading but grant contracts persistent access to funds, creating a direct risk if a contract is compromised.

QBesides the SwapNet incident, what other exploit was reported on the same day and what was the value of the assets stolen?

AA different Ethereum exploit was spotted by security auditor Pashov on the same day, where about 37 WBTC, valued at over $3.1 million, was stolen.

你可能也喜歡

如何让自己变得让人工智能永远也无法取代

面对人工智能的冲击,许多人担心工作被取代。然而,真正的威胁在于个人对他人和系统的依赖,以及由此产生的“薪资奴役”——即为生存而从事无意义、枯燥的工作。摆脱这种困境的关键,不是抵制技术,而是成为拥有高自主性的“不可受雇”个体。 文章提出了成功抵御AI替代的五个核心要素:自主性(主动行动的能力)、品味(判断事物价值的经验)、说服力(让他人关注你工作的能力)、毅力(坚持并从错误中学习)和迭代(根据反馈持续改进)。这些能力无法仅通过理论学习获得,必须通过实践来培养。 要启动转变,首先要彻底改变环境,重塑身份认同。其次,应选择一个能获得真实、快速反馈的实践领域,例如创业。在众多技能中,内容创作(媒体)比编写代码更具优势,因为其价值是主观的,需要独特的审美和判断力,这正是AI目前难以完全复制的。 具体行动上,可以从三个步骤开始: 1. **挖掘原始素材**:反思自己长期痴迷的知识领域、轻松解决的难题或童年被压抑的兴趣,找到独特的个人经验。 2. **确立反向思考主轴**:找出你坚信但主流观点错误的地方,或行业内普遍忽视的“皇帝新衣”,形成独特的批判性视角。 3. **立即发布**:将前两步的思考融合,撰写并发布第一个核心内容(如帖子、视频),勇敢接受真实世界的反馈,并在此基础上持续学习和迭代。 最终,抵御AI的关键在于构建一份与自身身份深度契合的毕生事业,通过持续的内容创作和真实互动,建立无法被自动化取代的独特价值和影响力。行动,从今天发布第一个想法开始。

marsbit6 小時前

如何让自己变得让人工智能永远也无法取代

marsbit6 小時前

通过掷骰子离线保管比特币密钥:并非人人愿意为之

文章探讨了通过投掷骰子生成比特币钱包种子短语的安全方法及其现实挑战。核心观点如下: **1. 骰子提供物理熵源** 骰子结果由众多微小变量决定,理论上虽可预测,但实践中无法被攻击者复制或计算,从而提供高质量的随机性。每个六面骰子投掷约产生2.585比特熵,50次投掷即可满足典型12词助记词(128比特熵)的安全需求。 **2. Coldcard漏洞事件凸显手工熵源的价值** 近期Coldcard硬件钱包因固件漏洞导致其内部随机数生成器存在缺陷,致使约1128枚比特币被盗。但那些**完全**通过足量骰子投掷生成种子短语的用户未受此漏洞影响,因为他们的主密钥未使用有缺陷的生成器。 **3. 重要警示:手工种子并非万能保护** 安全研究员指出,即使用户使用骰子生成了安全的种子,若他们使用了Coldcard的其他功能(如生成纸钱包、克隆密钥、共享签名密钥、密码等),这些**衍生密钥**仍可能调用有漏洞的随机数生成器,从而存在风险。安全种子不保证设备生成的所有秘密都安全。 **4. 手工生成熵源的现实局限性** 尽管数学上可靠,但该方法对大多数用户并不友好: * **过程繁琐易错**:需投掷50-99次,精确记录,任何输入错误都会导致钱包完全不同。 * **引入新风险**:用户可能在记录、转换过程中泄露信息,或使用有偏的骰子/投掷方式。 * **用户体验差**:难以想象大规模推广需要用户手动投掷近百次骰子。安全措施需适应现实生活场景和普通用户的知识水平。 **5. 给用户的建议** 受影响的Coldcard用户应: * 更新固件至最新版。 * 检查是否使用过有漏洞的功能生成了次级密钥或密码,如有则需立即更换。 * 考虑采用多签方案,使用不同厂商的设备分散风险。 **结论**:手工投掷骰子生成熵源是技术娴熟用户的一个有效安全选项,但其过程复杂、容易出错,不适合作为主流用户的默认方法。长远目标是依赖安全、透明且无需专业知识的硬件/软件随机数生成方案。

cryptonews.ru9 小時前

通过掷骰子离线保管比特币密钥:并非人人愿意为之

cryptonews.ru9 小時前

交易

現貨
活动图片