User Hack

TOTAL LOST $48K
Low Phishing

Summarize with AI

ChatGPT Perplexity Claude Grok
Affected Chain 2024 Incident surface
Recovered - No recovery reported
All-Time Rank #1725 By amount stolen
Protocol Type Algo-Stables Target category

Incident Overview

Quick Summary

User falls victim to phishing scam, mistakenly sending 17 ETH (approx. 48,030 USD) to attacker's address.

Details of the Exploit

On February 15, 2024, a user fell victim to a phishing scam. The attacker made two transactions that appeared identical to the victim's last transaction at the time. The victim mistakenly sent 17 ETH to the scammer's address.

The attacker address's first five and last five characters are the same as an address that previously sent 15.09 ETH to the victim's address. The stolen funds were then distributed among multiple addresses.

Block Data Reference

Attacker Address:

https://etherscan.io/address/0xC6e563F6…599d77

Malicious Transaction:

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x71fba2a1…78ffc9

Funds Holder as of Feb 24, 2024:

https://etherscan.io/address/0xC6e563F6…599d77

Attackers Imitated Transactions:

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0aa57d69…01bdc4

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0b198151…ab2c4e

This is classified as a Phishing Attacks . Compare similar hacks →

Incident Report

Protocol / Project User
Date of Incident
Attack Technique Phishing
Classification Other
Primary Source View Post-Mortem

Protocol Information

Protocol Type Algo-Stables
Official Website cruxfinance.io/use-analytics
Protocol Twitter/X @StableUSE
Team Anonymous
Source Code Unverified

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 phishing and Solidity and EVM internals
Capital Required Seed capital to cover gas and initial position setup
On-Chain Access Ability to interact with smart contracts and deploy a custom exploit contract
Protocol Analysis Identification of the exploitable vulnerability in User's contract logic - root cause: other
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? Likely — with a thorough Phishing audit checklist and test coverage

If you're auditing a protocol with similar architecture to User, these are the critical security checks that could have prevented this incident (February 2024).

  • Verify all logic paths related to Phishing are guarded by proper access controls and input validation - see the Phishing Attacks attack class for patterns
  • 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

Related Attack Classes

The technique used in this hack maps to these vulnerability classes in our security curriculum:

See all Phishing Attacks examples →

Phishing Attacks

Sources & References

Browse all hacks

These hacks used the same attack technique. Understanding the pattern helps prevent future exploits.

USDC Permit Signature Phishing $1.8M
Phishing
Social Engineering Scam $282M
Phishing
Address Poisoning Attack $50.0M
Phishing
Zerobase $240K
Phishing
MUBARA $55K
Phishing
Venus $13.0M
Phishing

Learn to Prevent the Next User

The User 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
Recreate exploit patterns safely Free Trial