Although Coinbase has taken a number of measures to respond, user attacks may have become the "norm."Although Coinbase has taken a number of measures to respond, user attacks may have become the "norm."

Coinbase user data was stolen and blackmailed for $20 million. Social attacks have become the norm

2025/05/16 15:53

Compiled by: Felix, PANews

On May 15, two pieces of negative news about Coinbase were released, causing Coinbase's stock price to suffer a "Waterloo."

One is that Coinbase disclosed a cyber attack involving the theft of internal data and customer information, with a potential financial impact of between $180 million and $400 million.

In addition, sources said that the US SEC is still investigating whether Coinbase falsified user data before its listing in 2021.

Under the influence of two pieces of negative news, Coinbase's stock price fell 7.2% during the day.

Coinbase user data was stolen and blackmailed for $20 million. Social attacks have become the norm

Customer service leaked user data and demanded $ 20 million in ransom

Coinbase said in the report that cyber criminals bribed and recruited a group of malicious customer service staff overseas, who abused their access to the customer support system and stole data from less than 1% of monthly trading users (about 80,000 to 100,000) in the customer support tool. Although no funds, passwords or private keys were stolen, and Coinbase Prime accounts were "unaffected", the attackers used this data to launch targeted social engineering scams against customers.

Regarding this attack method, some crypto experts commented that this type of targeted social engineering attack (using overseas customer support teams) is not uncommon in the crypto industry. Because the information of active users of crypto exchanges is far more valuable than imagined. The average cost of attracting new users for the top exchanges is $5-50 per valid user, while the average cost of attracting new users for small and medium-sized exchanges is $50-300.

After launching a social engineering scam, the Coinbase attackers sent a ransom note demanding $20 million worth of Bitcoin from Coinbase and threatening to release stolen customer data if Coinbase did not pay.

The report states that the attackers obtained:

  • Name, address, phone number and email
  • Masked Social Security Number (last 4 digits only)
  • Blocked bank account numbers and some bank account identifiers
  • Image of government ID (e.g. driver's license, passport)
  • Account data (balance snapshots and transaction history)
  • Limited company data (including documents, training materials, and communications available to customer service personnel)

However, data such as login credentials or two-factor authentication codes, private keys, any ability to transfer or access customer funds, access to Coinbase Prime accounts, and access to any Coinbase or Coinbase customer hot or cold wallets “was not stolen.”

Multiple measures to deal with attacks, refuse to pay ransom and issue bounties

Coinbase took a series of countermeasures after the incident.

First, work closely with law enforcement. The insider who leaked the data was fired on the spot and handed over to US and international law enforcement, and Coinbase said it would file a criminal lawsuit.

Secondly, track the stolen funds. Coinbase worked with industry partners to mark the attacker's address so that authorities can track and recover the assets. And promised to compensate customers who were tricked into sending money to the attacker due to social engineering attacks. To further ensure the security of support operations, Coinbase will open a new support center in the United States and strengthen security controls and monitoring at all locations.

In response to the $20 million ransom demanded by the attacker, Coinbase said it would not pay it. At the same time, Coinbase will set up a $20 million reward fund to reward those who provide clues and help arrest and convict the criminals of this attack.

Coinbase users may be subject to social engineering attacks or have become " normal "

Despite the seemingly positive response measures, security incidents involving Coinbase seem to occur frequently, and the amount of money stolen is also quite large, especially the social engineering scams encountered by users.

In February of this year, on-chain detective ZachXBT disclosed on the X platform that Coinbase users lost more than $65 million due to social engineering scams between December 2024 and January 2025. He said that the estimated $65 million may be "far lower" than the actual amount because it does not take into account the cases submitted to Coinbase support and the police.

ZachXBT cited multiple security incidents and denounced Coinbase for failing to properly handle such scams. “Coinbase needs to make changes urgently because more and more users are being defrauded of tens of millions of dollars every month. Other large exchanges are not experiencing similar situations.”

ZachXBT also urged Coinbase leadership to consider strengthening measures against social engineering attacks, including giving KYC-verified users the option to enter their phone number on the platform, adding a new user account type that limits withdrawals, and increasing community outreach.

These proposals may not have been adopted by Coinbase, but this extortion incident may serve as a wake-up call for Coinbase.

Related reading: Coinbase Q1 financial report explained: Net profit plummeted 94% due to portfolio losses, and the company acquired Deribit to develop derivatives

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Pavel's humanity, and Ton's challenges

Pavel's humanity, and Ton's challenges

I really like what Pavel mentioned about not using a mobile phone. Essentially, this is an "information fasting" approach to the challenges of information overload, contrasting with the "food fasting" that everyone loves using apps. One is metaphysical, the other is physical, but ultimately, both affect the mind and body, influencing hormones like cortisol. Now and in the future, attention is the scarcest resource. Being able to freely disconnect from electronic devices is a luxury, a freedom with its own barriers. Pavel is also an extreme craftsman. The advantage of being a craftsman is that you can lead a small team to create a killer app. However, the limitation is that Telegram, as the largest instant messaging software outside of China and the US, cannot become another Tencent platform. This same culture has also influenced its Web3 project, TON. By the way, let me talk about my close observation of TON over the past four years as the first Chinese institutional investor in the world. 1. The wrong technological path was taken. TON's stubborn insistence on using C++ seems like a kind of technological purist obsession. Historically, Russians have repeatedly taken the wrong turn on the "data technology tree": the Soviet Union failed to adapt to the transistor revolution, became obsessed with vacuum tube performance optimization, and missed the entire chip wave. They often overemphasize performance and control, but neglect the ecosystem and development experience. TON's SDK, toolchain, and documentation ecosystem lack standardization, making the development threshold too high; this is not a syntax problem, but a problem of lacking platform thinking. 2. Uneven ecological composition. Currently, it's basically only Russians and Chinese who are active, but resource allocation is clearly biased towards the Russian-speaking region. This is something everyone is already familiar with. 3. Oligopoly. Funding, traffic, and narrative resources within the ecosystem are concentrated on a few "top" companies/projects. Everyone knows they must curry favor with the "top" teams, but mid-tier projects are severely squeezed out. There is also a long-term power struggle between foundations and the oligopolistic "top" companies, resulting in constant internal friction. 4. Failure to accept oneself. Accepting and reconciling with oneself is crucial for any individual or organization. Only on this basis can you face yourself honestly and leverage your strengths while mitigating your weaknesses. However, TON seems obsessed with pitching to Musk, persuading American investors, and getting to the White House. The truth is, no matter how hard it tries, in the eyes of others, TON remains a public chain with a Russian background. In contrast, BNB didn't try to play the "American" role. Instead, it first became the most popular chain in the Eastern Time Zone, simultaneously creating a sense of FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) among Westerners, before smoothly expanding internationally—a much more effective approach. 5. The story of "adoption for 1 billion users" has been told for four years, and it's still just a story. Pavel keeps telling a grand story of "connecting Telegram's 1 billion users with the blockchain world," but this story has yet to truly materialize. The reason isn't that the vision is false, but rather structural constraints: In order to survive and ensure Pavel's personal safety (in recent years, Pavel has become increasingly obsessed with his physical safety, given several incidents, including the recent events in France), Telegram must maintain a "superficial" separation from TON to avoid crossing regulatory red lines; this separation prevents TON from ever truly integrating with Telegram's ecosystem. Even stablecoins like USDE have maintained a supply of only a few hundred million—indicating that the story is grand, but the reality is small. TON possesses the perfectionism of engineering geeks, yet lacks the warmth of ecological collaboration; it has a massive entry point, but is hampered by regulatory realities; it has its own advantages, but has not yet reconciled with itself. It has a narrative and ideals, but these need to be transformed into a sustainable balance of systems and incentives. I wish the TON ecosystem will continue to improve.
Share
PANews2025/10/30 14:00