Trust Wallet Hack Highlights Security Gaps Facing Crypto-Friendly SMBs

Key takeaways

• The December 2025 Trust Wallet hack shows that vulnerabilities in crypto tools can affect crypto-friendly SMBs, even when attacks target individual users rather than businesses.

• Supply chain risks, such as compromised browser extensions or stolen API keys, can bypass traditional security defenses and lead to rapid financial losses in a very short time.

• The incident also revealed how weak or poorly prepared verification processes can overwhelm claims efforts, increasing operational pressure and delaying legitimate reimbursements.

• The heavy reliance on hot wallets remains a significant risk factor for SMBs, as convenience often comes at the cost of greater exposure to malware, malicious updates, and private key theft.

The December 2025 Trust Wallet hack, which resulted in losses of approximately $7 million, provides relevant security information to small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) that use cryptocurrencies. Although Trust Wallet primarily targets individual users, the attack’s mechanisms highlight common vulnerabilities that also affect crypto-friendly SMEs, including fintech companies and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).

In addition to direct financial damage, the incident showed how gaps in user verification created complications during the compensation process. For SMBs facing crypto, the case highlights common vulnerabilities and highlights the importance of addressing them before incidents occur.

This article explains how the Trust Wallet hack happened, its impact on the crypto community, and the challenges the wallet faced during the compensation process. It also explores the vulnerabilities that SMBs typically face during crypto-related hacks, potential remediation measures, and the current regulatory environment surrounding such incidents.

What happened when Trust Wallet was hacked

From December 24 to 26, 2025, attackers targeted Trust Wallet’s Chrome browser extension by distributing a malicious update affecting users running version 2.68. The attack resulted in the theft of approximately $7 million worth of cryptocurrency, affecting 2,596 verified wallet addresses. Nearly 5,000 reimbursement requests were then submitted by users.

Trust Wallet advised users to immediately update to version 2.69, which removed the malicious code and prevented further attacks. During the refund process, Eowyn Chen, CEO of Trust Wallet, emphasized the importance of accurate user verification to avoid fraudulent claims.

Security experts later determined that the attackers had inserted malicious JavaScript into the extension, allowing them to steal recovery phrases and private keys during normal use of the wallet. The attack likely involved the theft of an API key from the Chrome Web Store, which allowed the malicious update to be distributed through official channels rather than relying solely on phishing.

Once private keys were compromised, funds were quickly withdrawn and routed through centralized exchanges and cross-chain bridges, making recovery difficult. The incident demonstrated how reliable software update mechanisms can critically fail.

Following the theft, Trust Wallet disabled the compromised version of the extension, opened a refund portal, and established a claims verification process.

Did you know? The biggest crypto hacks often don’t involve breaking the blockchains themselves, but rather exploit wallets, bridges or user interfacesshowing that layers intended for humans are often weaker than the underlying cryptography.

Immediate effects on the cryptocurrency community

Although Trust Wallet promised refunds, the incident briefly weakened trust in browser-based wallets. Experts noted that many victims were unaware that browser extensions function like hot wallets, exposing them to malware and supply chain threats despite their convenience.

The attack also reignited the self-custody debate, with many commentators highlighting hardware wallets and offline storage as lower-risk options, especially for larger holdings.

Beyond Trust Wallet, the attack raised broader concerns about the distribution and update mechanisms of cryptocurrency tools. Browser extensions, APIs, and external libraries are widely used in cryptocurrency payroll systems, cash management, and SME-focused fintech services. The case showed that risks external to a company’s core systems can nevertheless cause significant damage.

The claims verification and processing process

A key element of the Trust Wallet hack became evident during the post-attack phase. Nearly 5,000 complaints were submitted for just over 2,500 affected addresses, highlighting the risk of duplicate, incorrect or fraudulent submissions.

Without robust verification procedures, reimbursement processes can become saturated, delaying legitimate payments and increasing operational risk. For SME cryptocurrency users who manage payroll, reimbursements or customer funds, this creates additional vulnerability in the event of an emergency.

Trust Wallet asked applicants to submit wallet addresses, transaction records, attacker addresses, and other supporting details to verify losses.

For SMBs, the lesson from the Trust Wallet hack is simple: verification processes should be prepared in advance, not developed during an incident.

Companies that manage cryptocurrency payments need established frameworks for identity, access and transaction controls well before an attack occurs. This preparation helps maintain stakeholder confidence under pressure.

Did you know? Hackers frequently move stolen cryptocurrencies within minutes using automated scripts, routing funds through centralized exchanges, mixers and bridges between chains to reduce traceability before investigators can respond.

Vulnerabilities SMBs Face During Crypto Hacks

SMEs often operate in environments where a single monitoring can result in significant asset losses. Malicious actors are exploiting the following vulnerabilities in these companies:

• Supply chain and update risks: The main insight into the Trust Wallet hack is the threat posed by supply chain attacks. SMBs frequently rely on browser extensions, SDKs, APIs, and cloud services to gain efficiency. Each added component increases the attack surface, making continuous controls and validation essential.

• Excessive dependence on hot wallets: The Trust Wallet hack exposed the risks of storing large amounts of cryptocurrency in hot wallets. Although browser wallets are convenient, they remain vulnerable to malware, malicious updates, and private key theft.

• Social engineering and phishing tracking: After a hack, phishing domains and impersonation attempts typically increase, targeting users seeking refund or recovery information. Attackers exploit confusion during these times. For SMEs, staff and user training is an essential defense against such threats.

Security Measures for Crypto-Friendly SMBs

In light of the Trust Wallet case, SMEs can take several security measures:

• Cold storage for major assets: Storing private keys offline can significantly reduce exposure to malware and online attacks. Hot wallets should be limited to small balances necessary for daily operations.

• Mandatory multi-factor authentication (MFA): MFA should be applied on all systems that access portfolios, controls, or approval workflows.

• Preparing for incident response: SMBs need clear, regularly updated plans to identify, contain and recover from attacks. Preparation shortens response times and limits potential damage.

• External security reviews: Independent audits can identify weaknesses that internal teams might miss and help ensure alignment with current security standards.

• Strict access controls and supplier monitoring: Restricting access, whitelisting opt-out addresses, and evaluating vendor security practices can help reduce risk.

• Training of users and employees: Educating staff and users to recognize phishing attempts and impersonation messages helps prevent additional losses during high-stress incidents.

Did you know? Many crypto hacks are detected not by companies but by on-chain analysts who spot unusual transaction patterns and wallet movements before official announcements are made.

Regulatory environment after hacking

Although no immediate regulatory action followed the Trust Wallet incident, it occurred amid heightened global scrutiny of the crypto sector. Regulators are increasingly expecting companies to implement strict controls around retention, incident reporting and consumer protection.

For crypto-friendly SMBs, this means that security breaches can not only damage their reputation, but also have compliance consequences. Staying in step with regulatory expectations has become as important for SMEs as maintaining technical resilience.