How much was lost in the Foxy.farm hack?

The Foxy.farm hack resulted in $6K in losses on October 20, 2020.

What attack technique was used in the Foxy.farm exploit?

The Foxy.farm exploit utilized Rugpull. Understanding this attack vector is critical for smart contract auditors and developers building secure DeFi protocols.

How can developers prevent similar smart contract attacks?

Preventing smart contract hacks requires a combination of secure coding practices, thorough security audits, and understanding common attack vectors like reentrancy, oracle manipulation, and access control flaws. Smart Contract Hacking (SCH) provides hands-on training to help developers and auditors identify and prevent vulnerabilities before deployment.

Foxy.farm Hack

TOTAL LOST $6K

Low Oct 20, 2020 Rugpull ethereum

Affected Chain ethereum Incident surface

Recovered - No recovery reported

All-Time Rank #1972 By amount stolen

Protocol Type Exit Scam/Rugpull Target category

Incident Overview

The contract deployer added initial liquidity at:

https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc9271907…77f2fd

The contract deployer invoked mint() function to generate new tokens onto his wallet at:

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x1780a928…3fd478

The minted tokens were sold by the contract deployer at:

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x35cbcf78…69e71b

Incident Report

Protocol / Project Foxy.farm

Date of Incident October 20, 2020

Affected Chain(s) ethereum

Attack Technique Rugpull

Classification NFT

Primary Source View Post-Mortem

Protocol Information

Protocol Type Exit Scam/Rugpull

Affected Token FOXY

What the Attacker Needed to Succeed

Understanding the prerequisites for this type of attack helps auditors identify protocols that are most at risk and helps developers build better defenses.

Technical Knowledge Deep understanding of rugpull and Solidity and EVM internals

Capital Required Seed capital to cover gas and initial position setup

On-Chain Access Ability to interact with ethereum smart contracts and deploy a custom exploit contract

Protocol Analysis Identification of the exploitable vulnerability in Foxy.farm's contract logic - root cause: nft

Execution Speed Precise transaction ordering and timing to exploit the vulnerability within a single atomic block

Obfuscation Plan A strategy to launder and move stolen funds - typically through mixers, cross-chain bridges, or decentralized DEX swaps to resist tracing

What Auditors Should Check

Could this have been caught in audit? Hard to catch — private key / OpSec failures are outside smart contract audit scope

If you're auditing a protocol with similar architecture to Foxy.farm, these are the critical security checks that could have prevented this incident (October 2020).

Verify all logic paths related to Rugpull are guarded by proper access controls and input validation
Review privileged functions (owner, admin, governance) for potential abuse vectors - centralization risks should be documented and bounded with timelocks or multi-sigs

Master these auditing techniques with hands-on labs and real exploit scenarios in the Smart Contract Hacking course.

Free Trial

Sources & References

01
Source 1 https://t.me/defiyield_ann/118

Threat Assessment

Severity Level

LOW

Attack Vector Rugpull
Root Cause NFT
Year 2020

Learn to Prevent the Next Foxy.farm

The Foxy.farm hack is one of many attacks that skilled auditors are trained to detect before deployment. Master real exploit patterns and defense techniques with hands-on Web3 security training.

Start Free Trial Browse Attack Library