2025-12-24 12:26:27

Recently, there have been many discussions on the exchange forum about address poisoning attacks, and this issue indeed warrants serious attention.

In simple terms, address poisoning involves hackers forging similar addresses to trick users into transferring funds to the wrong destination. How severe is this tactic? All the coins you've painstakingly accumulated could be lost in a single transfer, with little chance of recovery. This is not an alarmist statement—exchanges and wallets handle such complaints every day.

Some industry voices believe that efforts should be made simultaneously from both the wallet side and the exchange side. For example, wallets could establish a real-time blacklist of poisoned addresses and verify addresses instantly when users input a recipient address. If high-risk addresses appear again in transaction records, the system could proactively alert or even block the transaction. A major exchange's wallet product is already experimenting with this mechanism—checking the validity of recipient addresses and filtering small, spam transactions are part of their defensive strategies.

The idea of industry security alliances maintaining public blacklists is also quite reliable. Sharing known poisoned address information across multiple platforms can significantly improve defense efficiency. However, implementing this in practice requires considerations of privacy issues and the technical costs of data synchronization.

For ordinary users, don't wait for the system to save you. Double-check addresses before each transfer, confirm from official sources, and use address book features to store frequently used addresses—these small details can prevent 90% of issues. Wallet risk control mechanisms are auxiliary; your own caution is the first line of defense.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ILCollector

· 6h ago

I think... I still need to pay more attention. The defense mechanisms of wallets and exchanges are unreliable. --- Once again, it's a problem where users have to save themselves. Truly impressive. --- I've fallen for address poisoning before, so now I always carry a magnifying glass when I go out. --- A blacklist database sounds good, but implementing it might have to wait until the Year of the Monkey. --- Honestly, it's about developing the habit of double-checking every time. It's troublesome but worth it. --- Privacy and cost are two hurdles. Industry alliances probably also get stuck on these. --- Take a second look before transferring funds; it's more effective than anything... though no one wants to go through such trouble. --- Some leading exchanges are piloting this, but I don't know if it will be widely adopted in the end. --- 90% of problems depend on yourself? Then the remaining 10% must be really tough. --- The suggestion to store addresses in a directory is actually pretty good. Much better than manually inputting each time.

View OriginalReply0

NotAFinancialAdvice

· 6h ago

Uh... I have to say, this defensive measure is indeed more of a temporary fix than a real solution. Hold on, is relying on an address book really reliable? Better to stay cautious. All major wallets should be integrated; we can't keep operating independently. This kind of prevention is hard to perfect. My friend was a victim once, and his coins were gone. If the blacklist database could be shared across platforms, it would be a game-changer. Right now, it's too fragmented. Honestly, you still need to be vigilant yourself. No matter how advanced the system is, there will always be loopholes.

View OriginalReply0

ChainChef

· 6h ago

ngl this address poisoning recipe is getting spicier by the day... one wrong ingredient and your whole portfolio gets marinated in regret lol

Reply0

WhaleWatcher

· 6h ago

Honestly, this kind of poisoning tactic is hard to defend against. One of my buddies fell for it. This kind of mess should have been addressed by the exchange a long time ago. Sharing blacklists sounds good, but I'm worried it might just be another unfinished project. Forget it, I should be more cautious myself. Looking at addresses more carefully is really important. Constantly seeing poisoning cases, this circle is exhausting.

View OriginalReply0

ser_aped.eth

· 6h ago

Another task that requires us to be more cautious... Checking the address three times before each transfer is really getting annoying. --- The blacklist database sounds good, but I'm worried it might just be another new trick for big exchanges to cut costs. --- If the coins are gone, they're gone. Recover? Dream on. You have to be your own gatekeeper. --- Storing frequently used addresses in an address book really works, saving the trouble of typing them out every time and reducing errors. --- The problem is most people don't check carefully at all; they habitually confirm quickly and proceed with the transfer, which is the main issue. --- Sharing blacklists within industry alliances sounds good, but the difficulty of implementation is probably underestimated. --- Sending the wrong coin once teaches a much more profound lesson than any security mechanism. --- It would be great if wallets could truly intercept malicious addresses in real-time; don't just talk about it.

View OriginalReply0

FlashLoanLarry

· 6h ago

tbh the real opportunity cost here is people sleeping on basic operational discipline... like yeah blacklists are nice but that's just theatre if you're not manually verifying addresses. seen the data on this—90% prevention rate from literally just double-checking? that's not security theater, that's just... not being reckless lol

Reply0