Summary
Authorization through tx.origin (SWC-115) is a contract that gates privileged functions with require(tx.origin == owner) instead of msg.sender. In the EVM, tx.origin is always the externally-owned account that signed the outermost transaction, while msg.sender is the immediate caller, which may be a contract. An attacker deploys a malicious intermediary contract and socially engineers the privileged owner into calling it (for example a fake airdrop or withdrawal); when that contract calls the vulnerable function, msg.sender is the attacker contract but tx.origin is still the owner's address, so the tx.origin check passes and the attacker executes owner-only logic such as transferring funds. The flaw is the use of the transaction origin rather than the direct caller for authentication, which collapses the trust boundary between the EOA and any contract it happens to invoke during a call chain. It is a textbook class documented since Ethereum's early years and flagged by every major static analyzer.
How to avoid it in your code
- Authenticate with msg.sender, never tx.origin, for all access control.
- Reserve tx.origin only to assert msg.sender == tx.origin (block contract callers) when that is the intent.
- Use OpenZeppelin Ownable/AccessControl, which key on msg.sender.
- Add static analysis (Slither, Mythril) gates that reject tx.origin in authentication paths.
- Treat any contract call as untrusted; do not assume the human signer authorized the inner call.
References
Related vulnerabilities
All Web3 →- CRITICALWEB3-KELPDAO-LAYERZERO-2026
On April 18, 2026, North Korea's Lazarus Group drained about 116,500 rsETH (roughly $292 million) from KelpDAO's LayerZero-based bridge, the largest DeFi exploit of the year. No smart contract was broken; the contracts did exactly what they were written to do. The attack was against the bridge's off-chain verification. rsETH's LayerZero channel was configured to trust a single verifier (a 1-of-1 DVN), so the attackers compromised LayerZero's internal RPC nodes, knocked out the honest external node with a denial-of-service flood, and forced that single verifier to attest to a cross-chain message that never really happened. The Ethereum side then released unbacked rsETH from escrow, leaving wrapped rsETH stranded across more than twenty chains and triggering a bank-run across DeFi.
- HIGHWEB3-FRONTEND-DNS-HIJACK-2022
A frontend hijack leaves the on-chain contracts untouched but replaces the Web2 surface serving the dApp UI with a wallet-drainer clone, so no Solidity audit can catch it. The recurring pattern: attackers take over the domain registrar or DNS provider account (or a CDN/tag-manager account), repoint the domain to a cloned site, and prompt visitors to sign malicious token approvals, EIP-2612 permit signatures, or transfers. Curve Finance was hit twice: on August 9-10, 2022 its curve.fi domain was DNS-hijacked via a compromised nameserver and drained ~$570K in USDC/DAI; and again around May 12, 2025 at the registrar level, after which Curve permanently migrated to curve.finance and announced an ENS move (Convex Finance and Resupply, which depend on Curve's data feeds, suffered dependency-driven outages but were not themselves compromised). In July 2024 a mass wave hit DeFi domains registered through Squarespace, whose forced migration off Google Domains stripped 2FA: Compound's frontend redirected to an Inferno Drainer clone and 100+ protocols were exposed (Celer blocked its takeover via domain monitoring). Ambient Finance's domain was hijacked through stolen registrar credentials on October 17, 2024. Most recently, on April 14, 2026 attackers used forged identity documents to social-engineer the registrar into handing over DNS control of CoW Swap's swap.cow.fi and cow.fi domains, redirecting users to a pixel-perfect drainer clone for about 90 minutes; over $1M was taken in roughly three hours, including 219 ETH (~$750K) from a single wallet, while CoW's contracts, backend APIs, and solver network were untouched. The same bucket includes CDN-account injections (KyberSwap's September 2022 Cloudflare/Google Tag Manager compromise, ~$265K) and BGP route hijacks that swap signed bundles for drainer code.
- CRITICALWEB3-DRIFT-2026
On 1 April 2026, attackers drained about $285 million from Drift, the largest perpetual-futures exchange on Solana, in roughly twelve minutes, more than half of everything the protocol held. There was no smart-contract bug. The contracts worked exactly as written. The attackers, later tied to North Korea's Lazarus operations, spent months socially engineering the people with privileged access, then abused a Solana feature called durable nonces to get the protocol's multisig signers to approve, in advance and without realising it, the transactions that handed over control. Once they had admin rights they whitelisted a worthless token as collateral, deposited a pile of it, and borrowed out the real money. It is the case that proves the modern crypto heist is an operations and social-engineering problem, not a Solidity one.
- CRITICALWEB3-BUNNI-2025
On September 2, 2025 Bunni, a liquidity manager built on Uniswap v4, was drained of roughly $8.4 million across Ethereum and Unichain (USDC, USDT, and weETH/ETH) through a rounding error in its withdrawal accounting amplified by flash loans. Bunni's Liquidity Distribution Function (LDF) tracks an 'idle balance' that is rebalanced on every swap, and the withdraw path rounded that balance in the wrong direction under specific conditions. The attacker flash-borrowed millions in USDT and executed a precisely sized sequence of swaps that pushed the pool's spot price back and forth across tick boundaries, triggering the faulty rounding repeatedly; each cycle let them withdraw more tokens than they burned in liquidity (in the USDC/USDT pool the idle balance fell 85.7% while liquidity fell only 84.4%, and that gap was the leak). The bug was application-specific accounting math, not an oracle or price-feed flaw. Unable to fund a secure relaunch, the Bunni team announced on October 23, 2025 that it was permanently shutting down, leaving withdrawals open and relicensing v2 from BUSL to MIT.
- CRITICALWEB3-CETUS-SUI-2025
On 22 May 2025, Cetus Protocol, the largest decentralized exchange on the Sui blockchain, was drained of about $223 million in the time it takes to read this sentence. The attacker did not steal a key or trick a signer. They found a single wrong constant in an overflow check, buried not in Cetus's own code but in a shared open-source math library, integer-mate, that Cetus and several other Sui projects all depended on. With a one-token deposit and a flash loan, they convinced the protocol that a position worth almost nothing was worth a fortune, then withdrew the real reserves. It is the cleanest modern example of a vulnerability in a dependency draining the protocols built on top of it, and the second largest crypto theft of 2025 after Bybit.
- CRITICALWEB3-CETUS-2025
On May 22, 2025 Cetus Protocol, the leading DEX on Sui, was drained of approximately $223M. The root cause was a flawed overflow check: the checked_shlw function in the integer-mate math library built its guard mask as 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF << 192 instead of 0x1 << 192, so values above 2^192 slipped past the check and the subsequent 64-bit left shift silently overflowed (left shifts do not abort in Move). The flaw lived in get_delta_a, which computes the tokens needed for a liquidity position; under the overflow the numerator wrapped to a tiny value, so the function demanded as little as 1 token unit for an enormous liquidity amount. Using flash swaps (borrowing ~10M haSUI), the attacker opened a tight-range position (ticks [300000, 300200]) and minted a massive amount of liquidity for a negligible deposit, then withdrew real pool reserves. Around $162M was frozen on-chain by Sui validators and eventually returned, while roughly $62M was bridged out to Ethereum. Cetus relaunched after recovering and replenishing affected pool liquidity.