Cryptocurrency pockets supplier MetaMask has denied claims that an exploit of its pockets is the reason for a “huge pockets draining operation” that has claimed over 5,000 Ether (ETH).
On April 18, MetaMask tweeted in response to a sequence of tweets posted on April 17 by Taylor Monahan, the founding father of Ethereum pockets supervisor MyCrypto, who defined an unidentified wallet-draining exploit has stolen over $10.5 million in crypto and nonfungible tokens (NFTs) since December 2022.
“Current reporting on [Monahan’s] thread has incorrectly claimed {that a} huge wallet-draining operation is a results of a MetaMask exploit,” MetaMask mentioned.
Current reporting on @tayvano_’s thread has incorrectly claimed {that a} huge pockets draining operation is a results of a MetaMask exploit.
That is incorrect. This isn’t a MetaMask-specific exploit. https://t.co/MiJ3QgslMy
— MetaMask (@MetaMask) April 18, 2023
“That is incorrect. This isn’t a MetaMask-specific exploit,” it added.
The pockets supplier mentioned the 5,000 ETH was stolen “from varied addresses throughout 11 blockchains,” reaffirming the declare that funds have been hacked from MetaMask “is wrong.”
Chatting with Cointelegraph, Pockets Guard co-founder Ohm Shah mentioned the MetaMask staff has been “researching tirelessly,” and there may be “no stable reply to how this has occurred.”
“There are tons of impartial safety researchers additionally investigating this,” Shah mentioned.
He speculated it was doable to imagine that there had been “some form of personal key or seed phrase leak.”
In its newest sequence of tweets, MetaMask confirmed its safety staff was researching the supply of the exploit and was “working with others throughout the Web3 pockets house”
Associated: SafeMoon hacker agrees to return 80% of stolen funds, says improvement staff
In her thread on the exploit, Monahan acknowledged that “nobody is aware of how” this huge assault was performed, however her “finest guess” was {that a} important quantity of previous information was obtained and used to extract the funds.
She additionally initially claimed the attacker was draining long-time MetaMask customers and workers by utilizing MetaMask.
Monahan later acknowledged the exploit will not be MetaMask-specific and “customers of all wallets, even these created on a {hardware} pockets,” have been impacted by the exploit.
Journal: Ought to crypto tasks ever negotiate with hackers? In all probability
