Back to Blog

Breaking Down the Deceptive Tactics of 37K Phishing Contracts and How to Defend Against Them!

Phalcon Compliance
May 20, 2025
5 min read
Key Insights

The research has been accepted at SIGMETRICS 2025, a premier computer science conference, and we've open-sourced our dataset at https://github.com/blocksecteam/phishing_contract_sigmetrics25.

Since the rise of Decentralized Finance (DeFi), the blockchain space has drawn significant capital and user investment. However, this growth has been accompanied by a surge in phishing attacks, leading to substantial user losses. To avoid detection, scammers are no longer relying solely on Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs). Instead, they've shifted toward deploying smart contracts. In this article, we present our latest research on phishing contracts and demonstrate how our timely, comprehensive, and accurate phishing intelligence helps crypto projects safeguard user funds and maintain compliance, bolstering overall blockchain security.

The Evolution of Phishing: From EOAs to Malicious Smart Contracts

Traditionally, scammers lured users into signing transactions that send ETH or tokens directly to their EOAs. But that tactic has become easy to spot: wallets like MetaMask and Coinbase now warn users against sending funds to known malicious EOAs. This increased awareness has pushed attackers to innovate, leading to the proliferation of phishing contracts.

In response, scammers now use phishing contracts to mimic legitimate project behavior and obfuscate intent. Instead of transferring assets directly to an attacker's EOA, victims are tricked into signing transactions that interact with malicious contracts, effectively handing over control of their tokens without realizing it. This new vector poses a significant challenge to DeFi security.

A Scam Scenario Involving a Phishing Contract
A Scam Scenario Involving a Phishing Contract

These phishing contracts often contain:

  • Deceptive payable functions: Named like Claim or SecurityUpdate, these functions trick users into sending ETH directly to the attacker's contract.
  • Multicall functions: Designed to batch multiple token transfers into a single transaction—ideal for draining ERC20 tokens or NFTs after a user unknowingly grants approval. This is a common tactic in crypto scams.

BlockSec's Research: Detecting and Analyzing Phishing Contracts

This study focuses on phishing contracts on Ethereum. To enable large-scale phishing contract detection, we have designed a system that extracts suspicious function selectors from contract bytecode, simulates transactions, and analyzes the outcomes. Using this approach, we identified 37,654 phishing contracts deployed between December 29, 2022, and January 1, 2025. This extensive dataset is crucial for understanding the landscape of smart contract security threats.

The Financial Impact: Distribution of User Losses

Phishing contracts have led to substantial user losses. From December 29, 2022, to January 8, 2025, we discovered 211,319 phishing transactions affecting 171,984 victims, with total losses reaching $190.7 million. Notably, 89.9% of victims lost less than $1,000. Many users fell for phishing schemes multiple times, often due to unrevoked token approvals or repeatedly signing malicious transactions. Among them, less experienced Web3 users are especially vulnerable to these crypto scams.

Distribution of Victim Account Losses and Lost Token Types
Distribution of Victim Account Losses and Lost Token Types

Understanding the Attackers: Distribution of Phishing Contracts and Deployers

Most phishing contracts (86.5%) have both "empty" payable functions and multicall functions to target various token types. 70.9% of them earned less than $1,000, and 96.2% remained active for less than one day. Scammers rapidly deploy new contracts to bypass account labeling mechanisms, highlighting the need for real-time threat intelligence.

Distribution of Phishing Contract Types and Profits
Distribution of Phishing Contract Types and Profits

Our research further revealed critical insights into the attackers themselves. Nine accounts deploy 91.1% of all phishing contracts. Scammers often use tokens stolen from victims to fund the deployment of new phishing contracts. Notably, eight of these nine major deployers show fund flow connections, suggesting they operate as a coordinated phishing group. Together, they have deployed 85.7% of all phishing contracts, indicating a highly organized criminal enterprise behind many of these blockchain security incidents.

Mitigation Strategies: Defending Against Phishing Contracts

Our work reveals the widespread prevalence of phishing contracts on Ethereum and the significant losses they have caused to users. Hence, we propose practical and effective strategies to protect users from these threats and enhance overall blockchain security.

What Users Can Do to Protect Themselves

From a user perspective, vigilance is key in preventing crypto scams. When accessing a decentralized application and requesting services, users should closely inspect the website, including the URL, main page, sublinks, Twitter, and Discord links. Before signing a transaction, users should carefully review the transaction details, including the account and function call parameters. Additionally, they can verify the address label on Etherscan to determine if it is an official account. Always be suspicious of unsolicited offers or requests for approvals.

What Service Providers Can Do: Leveraging Advanced Threat Intelligence

Service providers—including CEXs, DEXs, wallets, PayFi platforms, stablecoins, and bridges—should actively maintain and update lists of phishing websites and accounts to protect users from potential threats. When certain accounts are identified as deploying phishing contracts on their platforms, these providers should restrict or deny access to their services. However, the inherent anonymity of blockchains and the complexity of on-chain interactions—especially in cross-chain activities—pose significant challenges for institutions in conducting effective risk assessments and ensuring DeFi security.

To address these challenges, BlockSec has integrated these research findings into the Phalcon Compliance APP. This platform leverages a massive, real-time database with over 400 million address labels, unlimited transaction hop tracing, and an AI-powered behavioral analysis engine. With these capabilities, the APP enables institutions to quickly identify phishing addresses and suspicious entities interacting with them, providing critical on-chain forensics.

Phalcon Compliance: Real-time Blockchain Risk Assessment
Leverage BlockSec's advanced threat intelligence to identify and mitigate risks from phishing contracts, sanctioned entities, and illicit activities. Protect your users and ensure regulatory compliance with our comprehensive solution.
Learn More

Beyond phishing addresses, the Phalcon Compliance APP also detects other risky entities, such as attackers, sanctioned entities, mixers, money launderers, and dark webs, as well as suspicious behaviors like high-frequency transfers, large transfers, and transit addresses. When illegal activities are detected, the APP promptly notifies institutions through seven different channels, ensuring they can respond immediately. Besides, the APP offers a range of features, including task delegation, comment addition, blacklisting, and one-click generation of Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs). Together, these tools provide a comprehensive solution for identifying and mitigating risks while simplifying compliance workflows and bolstering Web3 security.

Get Started with Phalcon Compliance

Crypto compliance hub for wallet screening and KYT

Try now for free
Sign up for the latest updates
The Decentralization Dilemma: Cascading Risk and Emergency Power in the KelpDAO Crisis
Security Insights

The Decentralization Dilemma: Cascading Risk and Emergency Power in the KelpDAO Crisis

This BlockSec deep-dive analyzes the KelpDAO $290M rsETH cross-chain bridge exploit (April 18, 2026), attributed to the Lazarus Group, tracing a causal chain across three layers: how a single-point DVN dependency enabled the attack, how DeFi composability cascaded the damage through Aave V3 lending markets to freeze WETH liquidity exceeding $6.7B across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Mantle, and Linea, and how the crisis forced decentralized governance to exercise centralized emergency powers. The article examines three parameters that shaped the cascade's severity (LTV, pool depth, and cross-chain deployment count) and provides an exclusive technical breakdown of Arbitrum Security Council's forced state transition, an atomic contract upgrade that moved 30,766 ETH without the holder's signature.

Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Apr 13 – Apr 19, 2026
Security Insights

Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Apr 13 – Apr 19, 2026

This BlockSec weekly security report covers four attack incidents detected between April 13 and April 19, 2026, across multiple chains such as Ethereum, Unichain, Arbitrum, and NEAR, with total estimated losses of approximately $310M. The highlighted incident is the $290M KelpDAO rsETH bridge exploit, where an attacker poisoned the RPC infrastructure of the sole LayerZero DVN to fabricate a cross-chain message, triggering a cascading WETH freeze across five chains and an Arbitrum Security Council forced state transition that raises questions about the actual trust boundaries of decentralized systems. Other incidents include a $242K MMR proof forgery on Hyperbridge, a $1.5M signed integer abuse on Dango, and an $18.4M circular swap path exploit on Rhea Finance's Burrowland protocol.

Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Apr 6 – Apr 12, 2026
Security Insights

Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Apr 6 – Apr 12, 2026

This BlockSec weekly security report covers four DeFi attack incidents detected between April 6 and April 12, 2026, across Linea, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Optimism, Avalanche, and Base, with total estimated losses of approximately $928.6K. Notable incidents include a $517K approval-related exploit where a user mistakenly approved a permissionless SquidMulticall contract enabling arbitrary external calls, a $193K business logic flaw in the HB token's reward-settlement logic that allowed direct AMM reserve manipulation, a $165.6K exploit in Denaria's perpetual DEX caused by a rounding asymmetry compounded with an unsafe cast, and a $53K access control issue in XBITVault caused by an initialization-dependent check that failed open. The report provides detailed vulnerability analysis and attack transaction breakdowns for each incident.

Start Real-Time AML with Phalcon Compliance

Turn Phalcon Network alerts into actions with Phalcon Compliance. Use verified blockchain intelligence to screen wallets, monitor transactions and investigate risks. This helps you respond quickly and stay compliant in the digital assets ecosystem.

Phalcon Compliance