Across Protocol Halts User Activity Amid Wallet-Draining Reports

Cross-chain bridge Across Protocol told users on Tuesday to stay off its app and stop signing transactions while it investigates a potential security incident. The warning came as multiple users reported drained wallets, including one claiming a $9,000 loss in USDC.

Across, which lets users move digital assets between Ethereum and other blockchain networks, posted the advisory on X. It told users not to access the app or connect wallets, and not to sign transactions or approvals until further notice. The protocol did not specify the nature of the incident or say whether its website had been compromised.

What are users actually reporting?

The reports paint a consistent picture. On X, one user said they lost $9,000 in USDC. Another reported losing 7,053 USDT0 across seven separate transactions on the Plasma blockchain. A third said their wallet was drained after using the bridge several times, and alleged the website itself had been compromised.

Across responded to at least some of the reports publicly, asking users for transaction details so it could investigate. Cointelegraph, which first reported the story, has not independently verified the claims. Across did not immediately respond to a request for more details.

The pattern matters here. Repeated approvals followed by drained balances is the classic signature of a compromised front end or malicious contract approval flow, not necessarily a breach of the bridge contracts themselves. But nobody has confirmed the root cause yet. Users who interacted with the app recently should check, and revoke, any outstanding token approvals on their wallets.

What does this change for bridge users?

For now, the practical answer is simple: don't use the app, and don't sign anything. Self-custody means the user is the last line of defense. When a protocol's interface or approval flow is under suspicion, even a legitimate-looking prompt can be the attack. Until Across publishes a post-mortem, every signature is a bet on infrastructure nobody has cleared.

Multiple drainers hitting multiple users across multiple transactions suggests the exposure may not be limited to a single address. The 7,053 USDT0 loss spread across seven Plasma transactions shows the attacker moved deliberately rather than in a single sweep. That detail, if verified, points to sustained access rather than a one-shot grab.

NEAR AI discloses a separate breach

The same news cycle brought a second, unrelated security disclosure. NEAR AI said Monday that attackers exploited a vulnerability in its AI infrastructure, exposing account details belonging to roughly 100 users and data from 18 AI agents.

According to a November 9 incident report, the attackers used a remote code execution vulnerability in SGLang, an open-source AI inference engine, to access an internal server and other infrastructure. The exposed data included user names, email addresses, agent chat histories, settings and logs. Two customers also had API keys exposed.

NEAR AI said the attackers may also have observed requests processed on the compromised server, including those running in confidential mode. The company has patched the vulnerability, revoked the exposed credentials and restored access to its cloud services.

Two incidents, one lesson

The two breaches hit different layers of the stack. Across faces a possible front-end or approval-flow compromise on a bridge that moves assets between chains. NEAR AI suffered a remote code execution in the inference layer that powers its agent platform. What they share is scale: small user counts, fast disclosure, and no confirmed totals of stolen funds or abused data yet.

For Across, the open questions are harder. It hasn't confirmed a compromise, named a root cause, or stated whether bridge contracts are safe. Until it does, the advisory to avoid the app stands, and the reported losses — $9,000 in USDC and 7,053 USDT0 — remain user claims rather than verified figures. Watch for a post-mortem or contract-level statement from the team; that is the moment users can reasonably reassess whether the bridge is safe to touch again.