hack or exploit

Tendril exploit drains roughly $555K in USDT after sell hook flaw

30Importance
no updates 6h+Status
2News media
2Pieces
Published
Updated
Since then
1 new report
In
DeFi
Also mentions
BNB

A TENDRIL DeFi exploit on BNB Chain was tied to a flaw in its sell logic, and a security advisory from 0xCERT put the net loss at about 555,000 USDT from the TENDRIL/USDT pool. Crypto Briefing framed the incident as a reminder for tighter auditing and safer custom token code.

Key claims & sources

✓
Crypto Briefing described the event as a Tendril exploit that drained roughly $555K in USDT after a sell hook flaw.
✓
The incident was presented as a reminder of the need for careful auditing and secure coding in DeFi token logic.
✓
A security advisory from 0xCERT said a flaw in TENDRIL’s sell logic was abused on BNB Chain.
✓
The advisory put the net loss at roughly $555,000 in USDT from the TENDRIL/USDT pool.

What it means

TENDRIL is a DeFi project running on BNB Chain, and the incident centers on a flaw in its sell logic. A security advisory from 0xCERT put the event in the context of a sell-hook vulnerability, which is the kind of custom token behavior that can sit inside DeFi systems. This matters because token contracts often automate trading rules, and errors in those rules can become an immediate security issue for liquidity pools and users.

Users and builders on BNB Chain have to treat custom token logic as something that needs close review before it is put into circulation. A pool tied to TENDRIL and USDT was the one named in the advisory, so the practical concern is not abstract code quality but money moving out of a live pool. Projects that rely on bespoke sell rules may need to change how they test and audit those rules before deployment.

The tension here is between flexible DeFi design and the safety of the contracts that enforce it. Hooks and custom sell logic can give tokens more control over how they behave, but they also expand the attack surface when the code is wrong or incomplete. That trade-off is visible in this case because the issue was not market behavior or user error, but a weakness in token logic itself.

Still unclear is the exact path the exploit took through TENDRIL’s code and whether any wider parts of the project were affected beyond the TENDRIL/USDT pool. The advisory names the loss and the flaw, but it does not settle whether similar logic exists elsewhere in the system or whether related contracts need changes. A fuller technical postmortem or audit report would be needed to show how the sell-hook issue was handled after the incident.

Market reaction i

TetherUSDT it is the asset of the company or protocol in the event
first headline
0.0% 2 h before
0.0% 4 h after
$0.9994price at publication
12data points

The move was larger before the first headline than after. That is an observation, not an explanation: the market also moves on things nobody publishes.

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.

first
Nov 5 07:31
+1 d 5 h
Nov 6 13:17
The Cryptocurrency Post adds
Brings into the story: BNB, TENDRIL, with quotes

Thefts of a similar size

WhenWhat happenedFigure
4 months ago Projekt · Flash loan attack incident $560k
2.9 years ago Libra Protocol · Rug pull incident $550.1k
2.5 years ago xBank Finance · Rug pull incident $550k
3.2 years ago Starkware · Wallet not upgraded incident $550k
3.6 years ago Allbridge · FlashLoan price manipulation incident $550k

4285 incidents stored · 1111 were as large as this one or larger ($555k)