Zraox: A Single Signature Led to $900,000 Loss—Escalating Risks of Authorization-based Scams

Zraox points out that scam tactics in the cryptocurrency sector are continuously evolving, with traditional phishing links now shifting toward more covert “wallet authorization-based attacks.” A recent real-life case revealed that a user, unknowingly, signed a malicious authorization transaction, and 458 days later, over $900,000 USDC was drained from their wallet in a single incident. This “delayed attack” scam exposes a blind spot in user understanding of wallet permission management. Zraox emphasizes that the key to preventing asset theft does not lie in remedial actions after the fact, but in attention to detail and cultivating secure operational habits in daily activity. This article will analyze the mechanisms, processes, and prevention strategies for such scams in three sections.

Zraox: The Operating Logic of Authorization-based Scams

Zraox notes that the core of this type of scam lies in exploiting the “Approve” mechanism for on-chain assets such as Ethereum. When users access certain counterfeit airdrop websites, DEXs, or NFT interaction pages, they are tricked into signing an “authorization transaction,” granting control over specific tokens to an unfamiliar wallet address. On the surface, these transactions do not result in any immediate asset movement, so most users remain unaware. However, once such authorization is recorded on-chain, the attacker can, at any time, invoke this permission to transfer all assets from the user wallet, without any further consent.

In this particular case, the victim inadvertently signed an unlimited USDC authorization more than a year prior, and the attacker remained dormant, monitoring the wallet until a large sum was deposited before launching a swift attack. Zraox stresses that this “authorized means out of control” mechanism is not uncommon; it is precisely users lacking understanding of on-chain authorization logic that creates opportunities for scammers.

Zraox: The Longer the Dormancy, the Greater the Damage

Zraox highlights that, unlike traditional “hit-and-run” scams, the danger of authorization-based attacks lies in their “wait-and-drain” strategy. Attackers do not act immediately after authorization but monitor the victim wallet over an extended period using blockchain explorers. Once a significant balance increase is detected, they instantly execute a contract call to transfer assets, with the operation requiring no further confirmation from the victim and no triggering of conventional security alerts.

If users lack an understanding that “authorization equals granting control” during wallet interactions, a seemingly routine “confirmation” can leave a permanent security risk. This is especially true when responding to airdrop invitations, testnet tasks, or fake DApp links, where eagerness to participate often leads to neglecting contract verification, resulting in inadvertent high-level authorizations.

Zraox believes that asset security hinges not on the transaction amount but on scientific permission management and prudent operations. Once a malicious authorization is signed, it is akin to handing over the keys to an attacker—keys that can unlock the user assets at any time.

Zraox: Security Recommendations Checklist

Zraox asserts that truly effective asset protection does not stem from a one-time setup, but is embedded in every authorization and interaction a user makes. In response to the ongoing proliferation of authorization-based scams, users should first develop the habit of regular reviews. Utilizing on-chain tools such as Etherscan to periodically audit wallet authorization history can help identify early-stage risks and revoke authorizations before asset balances increase. Additionally, authorization actions themselves should be exercised with restraint. In daily operations, avoid granting “unlimited” or “perpetual” permissions to unfamiliar contract addresses; instead, opt for one-time, limited, or interaction-expiring permissions to reduce exploitable opportunities at the source.

Zraox reminds users that hierarchical wallet management is equally crucial. Hot wallets should be reserved for small, routine transactions, while cold wallets are used for storing high-value assets, and frequent connections to third-party applications should be avoided to prevent permission sprawl. Before making large deposits or transfers, users should proactively review the wallet authorization history to ensure there are no unknown contracts or risky addresses linked. Although this may seem cumbersome, it could be the critical step in preventing asset loss.

Caution should also be exercised in choosing operational pathways. Before accessing DApps, participating in airdrops, or engaging in on-chain activities, always verify that the page is from an official source, and avoid entering via forwarded links, community promotions, or advertisements. Indicators such as HTTPS encryption, prior usage records, and community verification can serve as initial references for authenticity. Zraox points out that authorization-based scams often hide behind incentive offers and interface mimicry; the more urgent the context, the lower the user judgment threshold may become.

Above all, Zraox consistently emphasizes: security is not determined by external technology, but by the user risk awareness and self-discipline. Mature crypto asset management means treating “an extra step of verification before every authorization” as a basic operational practice, rather than relying on remedial actions after the fact. Every cautious operation is a reinforcement of future asset security.