What are the major security risks and smart contract vulnerabilities in the TON blockchain ecosystem?

Transaction Comment Fraud and Wallet Drainer Malware: Two Major Attack Vectors Targeting TON Users

The TON blockchain ecosystem faces increasingly sophisticated threats from transaction comment fraud and wallet drainer malware, representing two of the most destructive attack vectors targeting users today. These schemes have proven devastatingly effective, with wallet drainer malware alone responsible for stealing nearly $500 million from over 332,000 crypto wallets in 2024, while phishing attacks extracted over $46 million in September alone.

Transaction comment fraud exploits the messaging features within TON transactions themselves, deceiving users into believing legitimate communications are embedded in blockchain transactions. This social engineering approach preys on user trust and familiarity with standard TON interactions. Simultaneously, wallet drainer malware operates through a more technical avenue, deploying sophisticated tools that drain cryptocurrency and NFTs directly from user wallets after victims unknowingly approve transactions for NFT purchases or interact with phishing websites.

What makes these attack vectors particularly threatening is their evolving sophistication. Wallet drainers operate by manipulating transaction approval processes, often disguising malicious contracts as legitimate DeFi interactions or NFT minting opportunities. Users may unknowingly grant permissions that enable complete wallet access and fund drainage.

A notable TON-based wallet drainer operator recently announced shutdown, citing insufficient high-value targets, yet this merely demonstrates how attackers constantly refine their tactics across the blockchain landscape. The persistent nature of these threats underscores the critical need for enhanced security awareness among TON users. These attack vectors continue evolving as new methods emerge, making continuous vigilance and education essential for protecting assets within the TON ecosystem.

Smart Contract Vulnerabilities in TON: Computational Errors and UI Design Flaws Enabling Scams

TON smart contract vulnerabilities encompassing computational errors and UI design defects represent significant security challenges within the ecosystem. Researchers have systematically identified eight distinct defect categories that plague FunC smart contracts, the primary programming language used on TON. These vulnerabilities range from unchecked return values and improper function modifiers to inconsistent data handling and premature acceptance conditions.

Automated vulnerability detection through tools like TONScanner has revealed the widespread nature of these issues. A comprehensive analysis of 1,640 smart contracts identified a staggering 14,995 defects in total, demonstrating that computational errors and design flaws permeate the TON ecosystem at scale. Particularly concerning are TON-specific defects such as Ignore Errors Mode Usage, Pseudo Deletion, and Unchecked Bounced Message handling, which create exploitable gaps in contract logic.

These vulnerabilities directly enable scams by allowing attackers to manipulate contract behavior through UI exploitation and computational manipulation. When smart contracts fail to properly validate return values or handle error states, malicious actors can craft transactions that bypass intended security mechanisms. Design flaws in how contracts process and display information create opportunities for social engineering attacks combined with technical exploits, making scams more convincing and effective.

Centralized Exchange and Custody Risks: TON's Dependence on Third-Party Infrastructure for Asset Security

Centralized exchanges handling TON assets introduce a significant layer of risk that extends beyond the blockchain itself. When users deposit TON tokens on these platforms, they entrust third-party custodians with complete control over their private keys and asset access. This dependency on centralized exchange infrastructure creates multiple vulnerability vectors that can compromise asset security.

These third-party platforms face persistent threats including sophisticated hacking attempts, insider theft, and operational failures. Historical exchange breaches demonstrate that even well-established platforms remain susceptible to security compromises that expose millions in cryptocurrency. Beyond direct attacks, centralized exchange custody arrangements often lack transparent security protocols and independent verification mechanisms. Regulatory compliance gaps further compound these risks, as many jurisdictions are still developing comprehensive frameworks for crypto asset custody requirements. Users depositing TON on centralized exchanges effectively surrender self-custody, meaning their asset security depends entirely on the exchange's infrastructure quality and operational practices. This loss of control represents a fundamental vulnerability within the TON ecosystem, particularly concerning for institutional users and significant holders seeking to minimize counterparty risk exposure.

FAQ

What are the most common smart contract vulnerabilities in the TON blockchain?

Common vulnerabilities in TON smart contracts include reentrancy attacks, integer overflow issues, and access control flaws. These can lead to fund loss and contract compromise if not properly audited and secured.

TON网络存在哪些主要的安全风险和攻击向量？

TON网络主要安全风险包括智能合约漏洞（重入攻击、整数溢出、访问控制问题），DDoS攻击风险，私钥管理不当导致的资金风险，以及跨链桥接安全问题。开发者应进行代码审计，用户需妥善保管私钥。

How to audit and verify smart contract security on TON?

Conduct thorough code reviews, use automated vulnerability detection tools, and perform formal verification. Engage professional security firms like CertiK for comprehensive assessments of smart contracts on TON.

What major security incidents and vulnerabilities have occurred in the TON ecosystem?

TON ecosystem experienced a significant attack in May 2024 caused by access control and parameter configuration vulnerabilities. Main attack vectors include wallet vulnerabilities, message verification failures, and gas manipulation risks. Centralized dependencies also pose potential security threats.

What security best practices should TON smart contract developers adopt?

TON developers should use Linter tools to check FunC code, avoid accumulating excess gas fees by returning them to senders, properly validate Jetton token contracts to prevent fake token attacks, and ensure correct message handling to prevent unexpected execution interruptions.

What are the key differences in security architecture between TON and Ethereum?

TON uses asynchronous smart contract calls unlike Ethereum's synchronous approach, offering greater flexibility but increased complexity. TON's architecture prioritizes scalability through sharding and provides different security trade-offs.

How to identify and prevent rug pulls, flash loan attacks, and other malicious behaviors on TON?

Monitor suspicious transactions and token flows carefully. Use secure wallets with multi-signature verification. Audit smart contract code thoroughly before interaction. Verify project legitimacy, team backgrounds, and liquidity lock mechanisms. Avoid unvetted tokens and check for ownership renunciation and contract immutability.