Back to Blog

Newsletter - February 2026

Code Auditing
March 1, 2026

Top 3 DeFi Incidents in February

YieldBlox DAO: ~$10M

On February 22, 2026, a lending pool operated by YieldBlox DAO on Stellar's Blend V2 was exploited, resulting in losses exceeding $10 million.

The root cause was a dependence on a manipulable price source. Specifically, the USTRY/USDC market on SDEX had extremely low liquidity. The attacker cleared legitimate orders and inserted abnormal ones, artificially inflating the USTRY price from approximately $1.06 to $107. Reflector subsequently updated its price feed with this manipulated value, causing the lending pool to overvalue USTRY collateral severely. Leveraging this inflated collateral valuation, the attacker supplied minimal USTRY collateral and borrowed approximately 1M USDC and 61.2M XLM across two transactions. The stolen assets were then bridged to Base, BSC, and Ethereum.

Importantly, this incident was not caused by a contract vulnerability, but by a configuration failure at the pool-operator level. This case underscores the critical importance of robust, manipulation-resistant price feeds for lending protocols that rely on external Oracles. Protocol operators must exercise extreme caution when selecting and continuously monitoring oracle sources.

View in-depth technical analysis

IoTex: ~$4.4M

On February 21, 2026, IoTeX's ioTube bridge suffered a security breach, resulting in losses exceeding $4.4 million.

The root cause was the private key compromise of the Ethereum-side Validator contract owner. Because the bridge architecture granted full administrative authority to a single owner without multi-signature or timelock safeguards, the attacker was able to invoke the Validator contract's upgrade() function to transfer ownership of both TokenSafe and MintPool contracts to an attacker-controlled address. The attacker then minted over 410M CIOTX via MintPool and drained approximately $4.4M in bridge reserve assets (USDC, USDT, WBTC, WETH, BUSD, etc.) from TokenSafe. According to the project team, approximately 355M of the minted CIOTX tokens have been permanently locked or frozen as of February 26.

This incident is a textbook single-point-of-failure key compromise, underscoring the critical risks of centralized administrative control in cross-chain bridge architectures. Project teams should avoid concentrating critical privileges in a single account, particularly for high-risk operations such as contract upgrades, asset custody, and token minting.

CrossCurve: ~$2.8M

On February 2, 2026, the CrossCurve bridge protocol was exploited across multiple chains, including Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Optimism. The incident resulted in losses of approximately $2.8 million.

The root cause was that the ReceiverAxelar contract exposed a permissionless expressExecute() function that circumvents Axelar Gateway’s standard validation process. Under Axelar's intended security model, cross-chain messages must first be approved by the Gateway and then validated on the destination chain via validateContractCall(). However, the expressExecute() path skipped this process entirely, relying only on whitelist checks using sourceChainand sourceAddress parameters. However, both parameters were user-specified and can be spoofed by the attacker. By crafting a forged message with a whitelisted peer address, the attacker circumvented all security checks and triggered the unlock() function on the Eywa CLP Portal, releasing 999,787,453 EYWA tokens.

This incident demonstrates that fast-track execution paths must enforce the same security assumptions, validation logic, and access control guarantees as standard execution flows. Any optimization that weakens the canonical trust model effectively creates a security bypass.

The information above is based on data as of 00:00 UTC, February 28, 2026.

This concludes the February security incidents brief.

You can learn more in our Security Incidents Library.

Stay informed and stay secure!

Sign up for the latest updates
~$320M Lost: Liquid Network, Symbiosis Exploits | BlockSec
Security Insights

~$320M Lost: Liquid Network, Symbiosis Exploits | BlockSec

This report, covering 2026/09/07 - 2026/09/13, examines two security incidents that caused approximately $320M in losses, including the Liquid Network exploit of 2026/09/06 that the previous report did not cover. The larger was that Liquid Network exploit, where the rangeproof validation cache in Elements derived its key by hashing four fields — two of them variable in length — concatenated with nothing marking the boundaries between them, so a verdict recorded for one output was returned for another whose proof was never examined, letting the attacker create 4,000 unbacked L-BTC and peg out nearly all of them as bitcoin. On the Bitcoin route of the Symbiosis cross-chain bridge, spanning BNB Smart Chain, Ethereum and Rootstock, off-chain code that reads Bitcoin deposits took the depositor's identity from a field the depositor controls and then subtracted its fee from the deposit without checking whether the fee itself was negative, letting a 330-satoshi deposit mint `46,116,860,184.27388234 syBTC`; the pools it had to be sold through held only 11.26 syBTC, so the loss to liquidity providers and users came to an estimated 9.97 BTC (~$770K).

~$9.4M Lost: Injective, Aquifer Exploits | BlockSec Weekly
Security Insights

~$9.4M Lost: Injective, Aquifer Exploits | BlockSec Weekly

During the past week (2026/08/31 - 2026/09/06), four security incidents caused approximately $9.4M in losses across Injective, Solana, Ethereum, and Flow EVM. The largest was the Injective exploit, where an insurance fund identifier collided with a binary options market identifier and the settlement path never compared their denominations, draining about $4.8M; Aquifer on Solana lost about $2.47M because its swap path invoked an unvalidated caller-supplied Token Program, and Notional Finance V1 on Ethereum lost about $1.73M to an unchecked `uint128` cast that valued a debt at zero. Ankr FLOW on Flow EVM closed out the week with about $410K drained through a staking entry point that skipped its pause guard and minted against a stale ratio.

From Incidents to Regulation: Why Crypto Institutions Need Blockchain Penetration Testing
Security Services

From Incidents to Regulation: Why Crypto Institutions Need Blockchain Penetration Testing

Exchanges, payment firms, custodians, and wallet providers now lose the most money beyond the smart contract—in signing, custody, keys, people, and supply chains. Code-level audit and transaction-level monitoring each leave a gap, and traditional penetration tests may miss crypto's signing and fund semantics. This article opens our blockchain penetration testing series with the two legs of the case for institutions in scope: where the risk actually comes from, and how NYDFS, DORA, VARA, SFC, and MAS treat adversarial testing across five jurisdictions.

Best Security Auditor for Web3

Validate design, code, and business logic before launch. Aligned with the highest industry security standards.

BlockSec Audit