Event Overview

Recently, the Trust Wallet browser extension v2.68 was reported to have suffered a supply chain attack. The attacker is suspected of gaining control at the developer's device or code repository level, embedding malicious code along with PostHog-related scripts into the officially released version, and quickly reaching user terminals through the browser extension's automatic update mechanism. According to public information from Binance founder CZ, the estimated scale of stolen assets is approximately $7 million; security agency Pionex has detected over $6 million in stolen assets, of which about $4 million has been transferred to centralized exchange accounts. There are differences in statistical criteria and tracking scope, leading to a range of loss figures. On the surface, Trust Wallet, as a decentralized wallet, promises users "self-custody of private keys, assets in their own hands," but this incident exposes a fundamental contradiction: once the centralized development and release chain is breached, the local security boundary of users can be remotely tampered with. This article will explore four aspects: first, summarizing the known losses and data; second, outlining the high-level mechanics of the attack chain; third, discussing user-side risks and protective measures; and finally, assessing the impact on the long-term security narrative and infrastructure governance of the industry.

Attack Chain

From the currently available information, this incident is a typical supply chain attack: the attacker did not directly target individual users but instead infiltrated through a higher-level development and distribution phase. Specifically, the attacker is suspected of first gaining access to the developer's device permissions related to the Trust Wallet browser extension or penetrating the code repository and build environment, inserting malicious logic and PostHog JS scripts during the source code or build product phase, and then submitting the backdoored v2.68 version to the browser extension store and pushing it to users. There is currently no complete official technical disclosure regarding the specific mechanism of PostHog JS or the precise implementation path of the malicious code; relevant details are still in the verification stage, and public discussions mainly consist of high-level descriptions, while security agencies avoid excessive speculation on unverified technical details. Within the boundaries of fact, it can be confirmed that the browser extension has automatic update and silent replacement features, and users often do not review new version permissions or differences one by one. Once the release chain is breached, the malicious version can cover a large number of installations in a very short time. This "single point of failure—widespread diffusion" amplification effect is a key reason why supply chain attacks are highly damaging to infrastructure like wallets.

Financial Losses

In terms of the scale of losses, there are currently two main authoritative data sets circulating in the market. CZ's statement based on internal and community feedback estimates the total stolen amount to be around $7 million, which is a relatively rough loss estimate; meanwhile, Pionex has marked over $6 million in verifiable stolen assets through on-chain monitoring, of which about $4 million has been transferred to multiple centralized exchange accounts. This indicates that CZ's statistics may cover a broader sample of addresses or potential funds that have not yet been realized on-chain, while Pionex focuses more on the specific traceable flows on-chain. The structure of the $6 million+ and $4 million entering CEX disclosed by Pionex provides an important anchor for subsequent exchanges to cooperate in freezing and recovering funds, and also indicates that the attacker did not completely rely on decentralized money laundering paths but chose relatively high-risk but more liquid centralized channels. A more extreme case is that a single address opened a 40x leveraged short position on Hyperliquid, and then due to the wallet being controlled, the margin and assets were maliciously transferred, resulting in a forced liquidation of about 160 BTC in a short time, roughly estimated at about $14.14 million at current prices. This chain reaction indicates that a security incident at the wallet level can amplify direct theft of millions of dollars into several times the derivative losses through mechanisms like liquidation and margin calls. As more funds are identified as "dirty coins" and flow into CEX, platforms will face higher compliance scrutiny and freezing cooperation pressure, needing to find a balance between protecting innocent users and blocking hacker funds, which will also compel exchanges to further upgrade their monitoring and blacklist sharing mechanisms.

Security Commitment Tear

From a product positioning perspective, decentralized wallets like Trust Wallet make a core commitment to users: private keys and mnemonic phrases are fully controlled on the user's local device, and the project team cannot manage or move assets on behalf of users, thus granting users a high degree of sovereignty and privacy. The security boundary seems inherently stable at the "local device." However, this supply chain attack proves that as long as the development and release phases remain highly centralized and controllable by a few individuals, once this phase is infiltrated by hackers, what users are running is no longer the originally trusted wallet logic but rather tampered code that can rewrite transaction paths or even signature content without users' awareness, directly tearing apart the original narrative of "self-custody = security." CZ stated in response, "The team is still investigating how the hacker successfully submitted and released the new version," which actually points to issues in engineering and security management processes: whether there are human factors in code review, build signing, and release approval, or whether there are credential leaks or overly concentrated permissions. More controversially, according to community feedback, even in the fixed version, the PostHog-related scripts are still retained, and discussions around whether embedding a data collection SDK for product analysis violates the principle of security minimization are intensifying. For decentralized wallets, even if these scripts do not touch sensitive privacy by design, as long as their update, reporting, and operational logic are not completely transparent, they will create a structural conflict with users' expectations of "minimal, pure, and secure," becoming a new source of trust fracture.

User Protection

In terms of user protection, the operational advice proposed by security agency Slow Mist researcher 23pds has been widely cited: for wallets suspected of being affected, users should "disconnect from the internet before exporting the mnemonic phrase," meaning they should export and record the mnemonic phrase or private key in a completely offline environment to avoid opening a wallet interface that may contain malicious code while online, preventing the extension from making unauthorized requests or stealing exported sensitive information in real-time. This practice is especially suitable for users who have installed v2.68 or are uncertain about the security of their version. In terms of specific operational paths, users can prioritize the following actions:
• First, identify the current browser extension version; if it is v2.68 or the update time closely coincides with the event window, they should immediately stop any signing and transfer operations in that extension;
• Second, export the mnemonic phrase while disconnected from the internet and migrate assets to a new, secure wallet environment (which can be a newly installed mobile wallet, cold wallet, or hardware wallet);
• Third, clean up the browser extension, check various DApp authorizations, focusing on high-value or unlimited authorizations, and if necessary, revoke them one by one through on-chain tools or official interfaces;
• Finally, after asset migration, continuously monitor address fund changes and abnormal authorization records, and cooperate with the security team's information collection if necessary. Compared to browser extensions, mobile wallets and hardware wallets have different attack surfaces; the former faces more threats from malicious apps and phishing at the system level, while the latter relies on physical isolation and dedicated chips, making them more mature in supply chain security and firmware signing. The incident also reminds investors to build a "hot and cold layered, multi-wallet isolation" architecture: using browser or mobile wallets for daily small funds, while placing large long-term holdings in hardware wallets, reducing overall losses when a single entry is compromised. For the industry, user education also needs to upgrade from "reminding against phishing links" to "emphasizing update strategies and permission management," such as turning off automatic updates, cautiously adding extensions, and regularly reviewing authorizations, which should also become part of basic security knowledge.

Industry Insights

Placing this incident in a longer time dimension, it is not an isolated case but a node in the progression of crypto infrastructure through the same supply chain attack cycle as the traditional software industry. The traditional internet sector has already seen multiple typical incidents: from compromised build servers to malicious maintainers taking over dependency libraries, to stolen distribution channel certificates, with the core commonality being that attackers bypass the defenses of end users and directly tamper with trusted components "upstream." For wallet products existing in the form of browser extensions, these risks are particularly pronounced, and the direction for engineering improvements is becoming clearer: on one hand, there is a need to strengthen the verifiability of code audits and build processes, introducing multi-signature or multi-party approval mechanisms, and conducting independent team reviews and automated difference detection for key release versions; on the other hand, stricter decentralization strategies should be implemented in the signing and release phases, splitting permissions for development, building, signing, and listing among different roles or even different organizations, and pre-setting emergency rollback mechanisms so that once a malicious version is discovered, it can be removed from the browser store and a secure version can be forcibly pushed within a short time. Additionally, exchanges and other infrastructure providers are also passively involved in this incident: as about $4 million in funds are identified flowing into CEX, they need to improve on-chain monitoring, blacklist synchronization, and cross-platform freezing cooperation mechanisms, while also taking on the responsibility of information disclosure and risk control feedback when the incident is exposed, alleviating user uncertainty. Finally, this incident once again highlights the dependency risks brought by third-party SDKs and scripts (such as PostHog): any external component that deviates in the update chain or data strategy can become an entry point for attacks or trust crises. For highly sensitive applications like wallets, reducing external dependencies, strictly controlling permission scopes, and ensuring that all key logic is completed in auditable self-owned code will be basic requirements for future engineering governance.

Outlook and Warning

This supply chain attack on the Trust Wallet browser extension has caused a substantial impact on the core narrative of "security and self-custody" for decentralized wallets: users realize that even if the private keys never leave the local device, as long as the wallet code being run is tampered with at the source, assets can still be transferred away without their knowledge. This exposure reveals not a single vulnerability but a long-ignored structural risk. In the short term, the Trust Wallet brand will inevitably suffer a trust discount, and some high-net-worth and institutional users may choose to migrate their main assets to hardware wallets or competing solutions. The new installations and activity of the browser extension may also see a noticeable decline, with corresponding traffic being diverted to other wallet projects that emphasize security governance and transparent release processes. From a more macro perspective, regulation and industry self-discipline are expected to enter a strengthening cycle regarding wallet extensions, security audits, and supply chain compliance: on one hand, regulatory agencies may require mainstream wallets, browser extensions, and exchanges to comply with stricter software supply chain security standards, introducing mandatory audits and incident disclosure norms; on the other hand, industry organizations and security communities will also promote the formation of more mature open-source audits, signature verification, and incident response processes, making it easier for users to identify version risks. For ordinary investors, the most important lessons can be summarized in three points:
• Build a multi-layer wallet architecture, isolating large long-term assets in hardware or cold wallets to reduce systemic losses from single point failures;
• Maintain caution in update and permission management, turning off unnecessary automatic updates and regularly reviewing the authorization scope of extensions and DApps;
• Closely monitor official announcements and real-time notifications from authoritative security agencies, quickly completing asset migration and risk isolation in the early stages of an incident. Only under the premise of synchronously upgrading personal security practices and industry engineering governance can the promise of decentralized asset custody regain trust support.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。