攻击️Magic Eden: It wasn't the platform that was attacked today, it was Limi...

What's going on? On September 25, Magic Eden released a statement saying that the incident was not an attack on the platform, but due to Limit Break transaction protocol and smart contract vulnerability. CEO Jack said users should revoke their authorization, the platform is communicating suspension of asset transfers, and thanked White Hat hacker 0xQuit for assisting in recovering stolen assets. This clarification shifts the focus from platform security to on-chain protocol integration with license management, where readers who hold relevant assets can check exclusion limits accordingly.

I'm not sure what to do with it. . . . ? . . ! . Magic Eden , Limit Break, smart contract , on-chain , authorized by White Hat

This is the first time I've ever seen a link to an article on this topic.

The nature of the incident: Claims of platform attacks clarified

According to BlockBeats, on September 25, Magic Eden CEO Jack tweeted about the asset anomalies that were causing concern that day. Its core conclusion was: Magic Eden wasn't attacked today and related events stemmed from Limit Break's trading protocol and the smart contract vulnerability. At the same time, Magic Eden said it had stopped using the protocol two years ago.

This statement shifts the focus of risk from whether or not a platform has been breached to whether on-chain protocols and smart contract leave an access point that can be exploited. For ordinary readers, the fact that the front end is not directly compromised does not mean that user assets are entirely without risk; if the asset had previously interacted with related contracts through authorization, risks may still have been exposed in the manner of on-chain .

Processing progress: Suspension of transfer and withdrawal of authorization in parallel

Jack stated that Magic Eden is communicating with Limit Break to further address the issue, including pushing for a moratorium on asset transfers at the protocol level. Users should revoke relevant authorizations on Magic Eden before the program lands. The permission bar here typically refers to on-chain wallet open operating permissions on contracts; revocation of an authorization reduces the likelihood that a contract will continue transferring assets under conditions of vulnerability.

Jack also thanked White Hat hacker 0xQuit for assisting in recovering the stolen assets, saying that it avoided a further deterioration of the situation.

Follow-up: Official confirmation with user self-check

Magic Eden stated that more progress would be announced after further confirmation. Since the announcement did not disclose specific asset numbers, price points or affected user statistics, this article is not speculative. There are three observable focuses: whether Limit Break responds and executes protocol-level suspensions; whether authorized users can cut off risk through revocation operations; and whether assets assisted in recovery by White Hat still face irreversible losses.

Overall, this incident reminds on-chain users of the common-sense boundary between legacy and risky authorization: stopping using old protocols does not automatically invalidate historical licenses. It is safer for readers to check their own wallet's authorizations based on announcements and only retain necessary permissions.