In the early hours of November 6, Carlos, the growth lead of the on-chain transaction execution platform Definitive, discovered that his old hot wallet had been emptied in a short period of time and promptly disclosed this situation on Twitter. On-chain records showed that the relevant transfers were all signed by the old wallet address itself, which meant that the funds were transferred through an authorization process that appeared "normal," more like the recovery phrase or private key had been leaked, resulting in a failure in key management, rather than someone directly breaching a contract or protocol. Subsequently, Carlos continued to investigate on-chain movements and began to suspect that this theft was not an isolated incident, but part of a large-scale attack initiated by noble.base.eth, and he mentioned the recently highlighted Railway vulnerability multiple times, implying a possible connection between the two. According to monitoring information relayed by Chinese media like Planet Daily, in around 70 minutes, 96 wallets were emptied in the same manner, but this data remains a single source; at the same time, the technical details and actual exploitation methods of the Railway vulnerability, as well as whether there is a direct causal relationship with the attacks related to noble.base.eth, have not been publicly confirmed by independent security agencies. Thus, within the scope of visible information, this appears more like an incident triggered by a key leak, suspected to be involved in a bulk attack chain, while the scale of the attack and the specific responsible parties remain to be clarified further.
Self-Signed Transfers: This is Not a Breach of Contract
From the blockchain records, all of the suspicious transfers were signed by the same old hot wallet address, just as Carlos himself emphasized, "It is my wallet signing for its own withdrawal transactions." For those familiar with attack methods, this detail is very crucial: if each asset transfer carries a valid signature from the original address, it means that control has fallen into the hands of others, resembling a scenario where the recovery phrase or private key was stolen, and the attacker is "normally using" this wallet, rather than an external contract forcibly taking away the assets without authorization.
This also distances the event from the very beginning from the notion of "the protocol being hacked." In the typical sense of contract vulnerability exploitation, it would be accompanied by abnormal contract calls, modified parameters, bypassed permissions, and other on-chain traces. However, public reports have not indicated that the Definitive platform contract or other protocol contracts triggered abnormal operations at the same time or confirmed the existence of new vulnerabilities. Based on Carlos's professional background working at an on-chain trading platform, he offered a judgment "closer to private key or recovery phrase leakage," but this remains merely a technical inference from the involved party: as of now, no authoritative security team has published a complete technical analysis report on this incident, nor has anyone provided an independent review's qualitative conclusion. Before more on-chain evidence and professional audits appear, this "self-signed transfer" incident can only be cautiously classified as a highly suspected key leak rather than an established protocol vulnerability.
The Attack Rhythm of 96 Wallets Emptied in 70 Minutes
If we shift the perspective a bit from Carlos's personal wallet, according to the information relayed by Planet Daily, during the early hours of November 6, there was another striking number on-chain: within about 70 minutes, 96 wallets were subsequently emptied, with transfer actions occurring on a tightly packed timeline. It was mentioned that these victim wallets displayed "the same attack pattern," which means the transfer paths, signing methods, or the rhythm of funds being extracted were highly similar, more like a preset script being executed in bulk, rather than sporadic theft attempts.
However, this claim of "70 minutes and 96 wallets" currently remains at the level of single source material: the report did not provide a complete list of affected addresses, nor did it disclose the historical interaction correlation of these wallets, let alone any independent on-chain data service or security company that has publicly verified this number. If this data is eventually confirmed, then this incident looks more like a unified action against a batch of wallets rather than an isolated incident for a particular user; but in the absence of cross-verification and detailed samples, it is more suitable as a key clue that needs to be further tracked, rather than a confirmed fact of a large-scale attack.
Railway Vulnerability Becomes the Focus of Suspicion but Lack of Evidence
Continuing to sift through on-chain records, Carlos fixed his attention on an address that had been mentioned multiple times—noble.base.eth. He clearly stated on Twitter that his old hot wallet being emptied was "more like" part of a large-scale attack initiated by this address, and further linked this clue to the recently discussed Railway vulnerability in the community, believing there "might be some connection" between the two. However, in his public statements, he neither provided a systematic overview of noble.base.eth nor offered any technical details or exploitation paths sufficient to support this speculation, merely viewing this combination as one of the most suspicious directions at the moment.
It is important to emphasize that, up to now, the specific technical principles of the Railway vulnerability itself, its actual exploitation methods on-chain, and whether there exists a direct causal chain with the emptying of wallets have not been independently verified by a security team, nor has any institution formally reported the incident as a direct consequence of the Railway vulnerability being exploited. The true identity and controlling entity of noble.base.eth have also not been disclosed by authoritative channels. Therefore, readers must treat terms like "suspicion" and "suspected connection" as investigation clues that remain to be verified rather than settled conclusions of responsibility.
From the Breach of Old Hot Wallet, Seeing Personal and Team Security Blind Spots
Extracted from the accountability controversies, Carlos particularly emphasized that it was an "old hot wallet" that was emptied, and this detail itself exposes another layer of risk: many practitioners create new wallets at different stages, slowly fading the old addresses from daily visibility, yet they still retain a certain amount of assets and historical authorizations. Once these old wallets remain on connected devices for a long time, without system updates or software reviews, recovery phrase screenshots, browser plugin caches, and overlooked phishing signatures could, at some point, be concentrated and "liquidated." In this incident, outsiders can only confirm "the old hot wallet was emptied" based on his personal account, as the brief did not disclose the specific balance, token composition, and interaction history of that address, thus failing to assess the actual scale of losses, not to mention escalating it directly to a security incident at the company level.
This also reflects a common blind spot at the team level: people often focus intensely on current primary hot wallets and cold storage but lack a complete ledger and lifecycle management of "historical wallets" and "marginal assets." Hot wallets, for operational convenience, mostly reside on phones, browser extensions, or daily computers, remaining exposed to potential malware and phishing links for an extended period; cold wallets reduce the probability of being breached remotely through offline isolation, but once deemed "long-term secure storage," they require regular key rotation, asset migration, and synchronized revocation of old authorizations. Carlos's experience reminds practitioners and project parties: besides keeping an eye on the wallets currently in use, it is equally important to periodically inventory historical addresses, assess their residual value, promptly migrate or empty hot wallets that are no longer in use, and design a clear key rotation and auditing mechanism for the assets that still need to be retained.
The Truth Remains Unclear: How to Protect Oneself Amid Uncertainty
Based on currently available public information, only a few things can be relatively confirmed: in the early hours of November 6, Carlos's old hot wallet was emptied in a short period, with all related transfers signed by that address itself, resembling more of a "normal transaction" following a recovery phrase or private key leak, rather than someone breaching the protocol layer’s black box. As for his mention of "96 wallets being emptied within about 70 minutes," the relationship between the Railway vulnerability and the large-scale attack by noble.base.eth, currently remains at the level of single-party accounts and media relays, lacking multi-party cross-verification and independent technical report support, with accountability still in an uncertain state. What truly deserves attention next is whether there will be an analysis tracing based on complete on-chain data, whether Railway will provide more public explanations about potential vulnerabilities and repair progress, and whether the number and characteristics of the affected wallets can be more rigorously compiled. Until these answers are provided, whether ordinary users or project practitioners, a more pragmatic approach is to set a rhythmic key rotation plan for important assets, promptly clean and consolidate old wallets that are not in use for a long time, review authorization records across various chains regularly, and revoke unnecessary authorizations, while enhancing security habits for devices and accounts, prioritizing "reducing the cost of single-point failures" as an immediate security baseline rather than expecting some vulnerability announcement or platform statement to accomplish risk control.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
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[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
