DeFi DNS attack hits 12 sites as Blockaid flags Step Drainer
- Published
- Updated
- Since then
- 4 new reports
- In
- DeFi
At least 12 DeFi front ends were hit in a Halloween domain attack, and Blockaid identified Step Drainer on the affected pages. The domains were tied to Name.com, where the registrar later said the hijacked domains had been restored and that it was still investigating how the takeover happened.
Key claims & sources
What it means
DNS hijacking of DeFi front ends is not new; wallet-drainer kits such as Inferno and Pink Drainer have circulated for years, swapping malicious connect-wallet scripts onto legitimate-looking pages. This Halloween incident added Step Drainer to that list, hitting at least 12 sites including Flap and Kintsu. The pattern is familiar: attackers do not touch audited smart contracts, they intercept the domain layer users trust to reach them, a weaker link than the code itself.
Anyone who visited the affected front ends during the window faces the same drill: check wallet approvals, revoke any signature granted to the drainer contract, and treat the roughly $138,000 pulled across the dozen sites as the visible floor, not the full tally. Projects lose the assumption that a secure contract is enough; several teams had to post emergency warnings telling users not to connect wallets at all, a stopgap that only works if it reaches people before they click.
DeFi markets itself as trustless, yet the front door to nearly every protocol still runs through a centralized registrar, DNS records that can be repointed in minutes, and a login an attacker only needs to guess or phish once. Flawless Solidity cannot protect a user if the URL they typed resolves somewhere else. Until domain locking, DNSSEC and registrar-side multi-factor controls become standard practice rather than an afterthought, this category of attack will keep working regardless of how secure the contracts behind it are.
Name.com has restored the 12 hijacked domains but has not disclosed how the attacker gained control of its platform or which accounts were compromised, saying only that it is investigating and will post updates on X. That disclosure, whenever it lands, will determine whether this was a credential-level breach specific to a handful of accounts or a broader registrar vulnerability, a distinction that decides whether every Name.com customer needs to act now or just the twelve already hit.
Market reaction i
Coverage timeline
Every piece in order, with the time its news medium declares — if it is not believable we use ours and say so — and what it added to what was already known at that point. Arriving first is not the same as adding something.
Thefts of a similar size
| When | What happened | Figure |
|---|---|---|
| 6 months ago | INKFinance · Business logic flaw incident | $140k |
| 6 months ago | Quant · Arbitrary External Call incident | $138k |
| 8 months ago | Stake Nova · Flash loan attack incident | $137k |
| 3 months ago | USM · Arithmetic Error incident | $136k |
| 2.5 years ago | Z123 · price manipulation incident | $136k |
4280 incidents stored · 1556 were as large as this one or larger ($138k)