Connect with us

data breaches

$43M Drained in GMX Hack: Investigators Point to Complex DeFi Exploit Chain

Published

on

M Drained in GMX Hack: Investigators Point to Complex DeFi Exploit Chain

Decentralized exchange GMX has confirmed it suffered a severe security breach on July 9, resulting in the theft of over $43 million in user funds. In a statement posted to its official Telegram channel, the GMX team acknowledged that the protocol had “experienced an exploit” and that a full-scale investigation was underway in collaboration with leading blockchain security firms.

Trading on the platform was immediately disabled following detection of the attack. The stolen assets—originally held in user trading vaults and liquidity pools—were quickly converted into Ethereum (ETH) and stablecoins USDC and DAI, then dispersed through decentralized exchanges and cross-chain bridges, complicating recovery efforts.

“The attacker moved swiftly and used sophisticated laundering methods, indicating deep familiarity with DeFi mechanics and obfuscation tools,” said a senior analyst at PeckShield.

GMX, launched in 2021, has become a major player in the DeFi ecosystem with over 714,000 users and a total trading volume exceeding $305 billion. The incident marks one of the largest decentralized finance breaches of 2025 to date.


Technical Analysis: How the Exploit May Have Unfolded

While the exact vulnerability is still under forensic review, on-chain data and transaction behaviors suggest a multi-vector exploit that capitalized on weaknesses common in decentralized trading protocols. Below are the leading theories under investigation:


1. Oracle or Liquidity Pool Manipulation

The attacker may have exploited the platform’s price feed system by executing large trades in low-liquidity pairs to distort the value of assets. This tactic could have allowed for underpriced withdrawals or overleveraged gains, especially if price oracles lacked protective averaging mechanisms.


2. Flash Loan Abuse

It’s likely the attacker used flash loans to temporarily access large capital without collateral, manipulating token prices or vault ratios within a single transaction. Flash loans are often used to trigger economic imbalance in DeFi platforms not designed to defend against high-volume, low-latency attacks.


3. Slippage Exploit in Leveraged Trading

GMX allows high-leverage trading via perpetual swaps. If slippage protection was misconfigured, the attacker may have artificially altered price spreads, then capitalized through synthetic positions that paid out unearned profits.


4. Reentrancy or Callback Logic Bug

Although less common in modern platforms, reentrancy bugs—where a smart contract allows recursive calls before completing a state update—remain a known risk. Improper handling of swap callbacks or liquidity removals could have enabled repeated fund access within a single transaction.


5. MEV Exploitation and Sandwiching

Using miner extractable value (MEV) strategies via private transaction ordering (Flashbots or equivalent), the attacker could have sandwiched high-volume trades to extract arbitrage profits—particularly if the platform lacked slippage resistance or spread locking.


6. Proxy or Admin Privilege Misuse

Security researchers are also examining whether the attacker exploited a vulnerable proxy pattern or misconfigured access control, possibly allowing them to reroute funds or tamper with contract parameters via delegatecall.


Post-Exploit Laundering and Dispersal

Blockchain analysis shows that the attacker quickly:

  • Converted stolen tokens into ETH, USDC, and DAI
  • Split funds across dozens of wallets
  • Used cross-chain bridges and mixers to further obscure the asset trail

Most of the assets are now considered unrecoverable unless the attacker is identified or voluntarily returns the funds—an outcome seen in prior high-profile crypto hacks.


Sector-Wide Implications and Next Steps

The GMX breach raises fresh alarms about the persistent vulnerabilities in DeFi protocols, especially those involving high-leverage trading and dynamic liquidity models.

“Security can no longer be an afterthought in protocol design,” noted a former white-hat hacker turned DeFi auditor. “Code audits aren’t enough. Live threat monitoring, fail-safes, and user protection layers must become the norm.”

As of this writing, GMX has not announced whether it will offer reimbursements, engage the attacker for negotiations, or deploy a protocol-level fork to freeze remaining assets.


DeFi Security Checklist for 2025
To prevent future incidents, experts recommend:

  • Multi-layer oracle price validation (e.g., Chainlink + TWAP fallback)
  • Caps on trade volume and slippage thresholds
  • Real-time anomaly detection via blockchain analytics
  • Continuous penetration testing and open bug bounties
  • Role-based access control and secure proxy architecture

Conclusion
As DeFi platforms continue to handle billions in user funds without intermediaries, the GMX exploit is a stark reminder that trustless does not mean invulnerable. Security in open finance remains a race between innovation and exploitation—and the stakes have never been higher.

business

Louis Vuitton Confirms U.K. Customer Data Breach in Latest Cyberattack

Published

on

Louis Vuitton Confirms U.K. Customer Data Breach in Latest Cyberattack

In a troubling sign for luxury retail cybersecurity, Louis Vuitton has confirmed a data breach that compromised personal information belonging to customers in the United Kingdom. The cyberattack, which occurred on July 2, 2025, marks the third known incident targeting LVMH systems in the past three months.

The breach exposed sensitive details such as customer names, contact information, and purchase history, according to a statement released by the company.

“This incident is deeply regrettable. We are fully cooperating with the authorities and have taken immediate steps to contain the breach,”
Louis Vuitton spokesperson


Pattern of Global Exposure

This latest breach follows a similar cyberattack on Louis Vuitton’s South Korean operations, further raising concerns about the cybersecurity posture of luxury conglomerate LVMH (Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton).

“The nature of these attacks underscores the evolving threat landscape facing global retailers. No brand—no matter how prestigious—is immune,”
Marc Delattre, Cybersecurity Analyst


Regulatory Response and Next Steps

Louis Vuitton has formally notified the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and launched an internal investigation. Under GDPR, companies are required to notify both regulators and affected customers when a breach presents a high risk to individual privacy.

“We are conducting a preliminary review and expect the company to keep affected individuals informed,”
ICO Spokesperson

LVMH stated that it is taking further measures to strengthen cybersecurity controls, and ensure such incidents are not repeated.


What You Can Do if You’re Affected

Customers in the U.K. who have recently interacted with Louis Vuitton are advised to:

  • Monitor emails for breach notification
  • Be cautious of phishing attempts
  • Review any suspicious account activity
  • Contact Louis Vuitton support for confirmation and support

Continue Reading

data breaches

Terrifying New Ransomware Surge: Iranian Hackers Behind Pay2Key Target Middle East Tech Giants—Act Now to Stay Safe

Published

on

Terrifying New Ransomware Surge: Iranian Hackers Behind Pay2Key Target Middle East Tech Giants—Act Now to Stay Safe

A cyberespionage group with strong ties to the Iranian state has reemerged, targeting multiple organizations across the Middle East using an enhanced variant of the Pay2Key ransomware. According to recent threat intelligence shared by Check Point Research and corroborated by Israeli CERT, the new wave of attacks includes data theft, wiper components, and credential harvesting, suggesting an evolution beyond classic ransomware-for-profit motives.


Threat Actor Profile: Pay2Key

Pay2Key first surfaced in late 2020, known for ransomware attacks against Israeli firms. While earlier variants focused on fast encryption and ransom notes dropped across corporate environments, recent activity ties the group directly to Iranian threat actor clusters affiliated with APT39 and Agrius.

The group is now believed to be part of Tehran’s broader cyber-espionage apparatus, using ransomware as both a smokescreen and a disruptive geopolitical weapon.


Technical Details of the Attack Chain

The recent campaign exhibits a high level of tactical sophistication:

1. Initial Access

  • Exploited public-facing VPN services and unpatched Microsoft Exchange servers
  • In some cases, brute-force attacks on remote desktop services (RDP) were successful due to weak credentials

2. Credential Dumping and Lateral Movement

  • Deployed Mimikatz and custom LSASS scrapers to extract credentials
  • Used PsExec, WMI, and SMB to propagate across the network

3. Payload Deployment

  • The updated Pay2Key binary is packed with UPX and uses AES-256 encryption
  • Ransom note includes references to “Zionist collaborators” and demands payments in Monero (XMR), a privacy coin harder to trace than Bitcoin

4. Exfiltration and Destruction

  • Files exfiltrated via Mega.io API or command-and-control (C2) servers hosted in Russia and Turkey
  • In some cases, wiper modules were deployed post-encryption, designed to destroy shadow copies and render recovery impossible

Attribution and Geopolitical Implications

Researchers attribute the campaign to Iranian-backed actors based on:

  • Code reuse from prior Agrius malware families
  • IP infrastructure historically linked to APT39
  • Political messaging within ransom notes

Israeli cybersecurity agencies believe the attack is part of a broader campaign to destabilize regional tech and financial sectors, rather than a simple financial crime. This hybrid of cybercrime and cyberwarfare further blurs attribution lines and complicates international response.


Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)

  • IP addresses: 185.220.101.1, 213.108.105.12
  • SHA256 Hash: a92fe9be6f4c1c72e935dbf6f...
  • Domains: command-center[.]xyz, megasend[.]host
  • Ransom Note Filename: PAY_OR_ELSE.txt

Security teams should monitor traffic for outbound connections to these IOCs and block suspicious DNS resolutions and exfiltration channels.


Mitigation Recommendations

  • Patch Microsoft Exchange and Fortinet VPNs immediately
  • Implement strict RDP controls and MFA on all remote services
  • Segment internal networks and disable lateral movement tools
  • Backup critical systems offline; validate restore procedures regularly
  • Deploy EDR/XDR solutions capable of detecting fileless or lateral attacks

Expert Quote

“This isn’t just ransomware. It’s cyberwarfare disguised as extortion,” said Amir Sadoughi, a senior threat researcher at Tel Aviv-based CyberDome. “The Pay2Key group is deploying a multi-purpose toolkit that aims to destroy, not profit.”


Conclusion

The return of Pay2Key signals an escalation in the use of ransomware as a geopolitical tool, especially in regions under rising cyber tension. Organizations in the Middle East and allied tech sectors must heighten threat hunting efforts and ensure IR (incident response) readiness.

Continue Reading

data breaches

Fortinet Issues Emergency Security Patch for Critical FortiOS Vulnerability (CVE-2024-21762)

Published

on

Fortinet Issues Emergency Security Patch for Critical FortiOS Vulnerability (CVE-2024-21762)

Fortinet has issued a critical security update for its widely deployed FortiOS operating system, addressing a zero-click remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability that could allow unauthenticated attackers to gain full control of vulnerable devices.

The flaw, tracked as CVE-2024-21762, carries a CVSS score of 9.6 and affects several versions of FortiOS, the core operating system powering Fortinet’s flagship FortiGate firewalls and security appliances. According to Fortinet’s advisory, the vulnerability resides in the SSL VPN interface, and successful exploitation does not require user interaction or prior authentication.


Technical Overview

  • CVE: CVE-2024-21762
  • CVSS Score: 9.6 (Critical)
  • Vulnerability Type: Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution
  • Affected Component: SSL VPN (FortiOS)
  • Attack Vector: Network-based
  • User Interaction: None required

Fortinet confirmed that the vulnerability stems from improper validation of user input within the SSL VPN interface, allowing attackers to craft specially designed requests that can lead to arbitrary code execution on the underlying system.


Impacted Versions

The vulnerability affects the following versions of FortiOS:

  • FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.13
  • FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.5
  • FortiOS 6.4.0 through 6.4.13

Fortinet recommends upgrading immediately to one of the patched versions:

  • FortiOS 7.0.14
  • FortiOS 7.2.6
  • FortiOS 6.4.14

The company also strongly advises disabling the SSL VPN interface if a patch cannot be immediately applied, especially if it is exposed to the internet.


Exploitation in the Wild

While Fortinet has not confirmed exploitation at the time of publication, multiple threat intelligence groups have warned that threat actors are actively scanning for exposed FortiGate SSL VPN portals, and exploit code is expected to surface in the public domain shortly.

Given Fortinet’s history—including CVE-2022-40684, which was heavily weaponized by ransomware operators and APT groups—this new vulnerability is likely to draw swift attention from state-sponsored and financially motivated adversaries.


Mitigation and Recommendations

  • Upgrade immediately to the latest FortiOS version (7.0.14, 7.2.6, or 6.4.14)
  • Disable SSL VPN temporarily if patching is not feasible
  • Monitor logs for suspicious activity on port 443/TCP
  • Review user authentication logs and configuration changes
  • Apply external access controls or geofencing to limit public exposure

Fortinet’s Statement

“We strongly encourage customers to upgrade to the latest patched release. Protecting the digital infrastructure of our clients is our highest priority, and we appreciate the rapid response from our community in deploying critical fixes,” the company said in its advisory.


Conclusion

This latest FortiOS vulnerability highlights the continued risks posed by edge-exposed VPN services in enterprise environments. Organizations relying on Fortinet solutions should prioritize patching and consider long-term mitigations, such as multi-factor authentication, segmentation, and routine firmware audits, to reduce their attack surface.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright 2024 / Mag212