PANews reported on March 12th that, according to BlockSec Phalcon monitoring, the DBXen contract suffered an attack this morning, with estimated losses of approximatelyPANews reported on March 12th that, according to BlockSec Phalcon monitoring, the DBXen contract suffered an attack this morning, with estimated losses of approximately

BlockSec: DBXen contract attacked, loss of approximately $150,000

2026/03/12 16:08
1 min read
For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com

PANews reported on March 12th that, according to BlockSec Phalcon monitoring, the DBXen contract suffered an attack this morning, with estimated losses of approximately $150,000. The root cause lies in the inconsistent sender identity under ERC2771 transactions. In the `burnBatch()` function, the `gasWrapper()` decorator uses `_msgSender()` (the actual user) to update the state, while the callback function `onTokenBurned()` uses `msg.sender` (the forwarder). This causes `accCycleBatchesBurned` to record for the user, but `lastActiveCycle` incorrectly updates for the forwarder. This inconsistency breaks the logic of `claimFees()` and `claimRewards()`. When `updateStats()` is run for the user, the contract incorrectly assumes there are unprocessed burned batches because `accCycleBatchesBurned` has been updated while `lastActiveCycle` has not, thus incorrectly calculating rewards and fees, allowing the attacker to extract excess funds for profit.

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 crypto.news@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.