KelpDAO Loses $290M in Lazarus Group LayerZero Attack

robot
Abstract generation in progress

KelpDAO suffered a $290 million loss on April 18 in a sophisticated security breach linked to the Lazarus Group, specifically an actor known as TraderTraitor, according to early reports. The attack targeted LayerZero infrastructure and exploited configuration weaknesses in KelpDAO’s verification systems. David Schwartz noted on April 20, 2026, that “the attack was way more sophisticated than I expected and aimed at LayerZero infrastructure taking advantage of KelpDAO laziness.”

How the Attack Happened

The attack employed a multi-stage approach rather than a simple exploit. Attackers first targeted the RPC system used by LayerZero’s verification network, then launched a DDoS attack to disrupt normal operations. When the system switched to backup nodes, attackers executed their key objective: those backup nodes had already been compromised, allowing them to send false signals and confirm transactions that never actually occurred. Notably, no core protocol or private keys were broken. Instead, the attack exploited weak points in the system’s configuration, demonstrating the sophistication of modern cyber threats.

Single Point of Failure as Root Cause

The fundamental vulnerability stemmed from KelpDAO’s configuration design. The platform relied on a 1-of-1 verification setup, meaning only a single verifier confirmed transactions with no backup verification layer. Once that single system was compromised, the attack succeeded without any secondary defense. Experts noted this created a clear single point of failure. LayerZero had previously recommended using multiple verifiers, and a multi-layer verification setup could have prevented the attack entirely.

Impact and Scope

While the loss was substantial, damage remained contained to a specific area. Reports confirm the breach affected only KelpDAO’s rsETH product, with other assets and applications remaining unaffected. LayerZero quickly replaced the compromised systems and restored normal operations. Teams are working with investigators to track the stolen funds. The incident has raised industry-wide concerns about configuration security in advanced systems.

Implications for Crypto Security

The incident underscores that security depends not only on code strength but also on system configuration and management practices. The involvement of the Lazarus Group—a cyber group historically linked to large-scale exploits—adds significant concern, as their methods continue to evolve. Going forward, projects may increasingly prioritize redundancy and risk control mechanisms. Multi-layer verification could become an industry standard. The KelpDAO attack serves as a warning that even one weak point in system architecture can result in massive losses. As the crypto space expands, security practices must evolve proportionally.

ZRO-1.1%
CORE-4.55%
CYBER-0.43%
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 8
  • 13
  • Share
Comment
Add a comment
Add a comment
NonceNomad
· 04-22 18:24
290M, this scale is too terrifying; single-point verification really can't withstand hacker surveillance.
View OriginalReply0
BlackGoldMechanicalHand
· 04-21 13:58
Lazarus strikes again... each time, it's a textbook-level on-chain/security operation vulnerability exploit.
View OriginalReply0
PerpPessimist
· 04-21 03:39
The biggest weakness in configuration: the code isn't broken, but the process collapses first. Don't just focus on the contract during audits; permissions, keys, and verification links all need to be tested together through drills.
View OriginalReply0
GlassDomeBaskingInMoonlight
· 04-20 06:46
I hope they can disclose a more detailed review: attack paths, permission change records, why alerts didn't trigger, which would be more valuable to the industry.
View OriginalReply0
0xLateAgain
· 04-20 06:45
Users also need to learn their lesson; don't keep large amounts of long-term funds in a single protocol. Diversification and limits are the real defense.
View OriginalReply0
LendingPoolObserver
· 04-20 06:37
Ultimately, it's a trade-off between "usability" and "security"; taking shortcuts can easily lead to being compromised.
View OriginalReply0
SecondaryMarketDeserter
· 04-20 06:32
With this level of funding, you should assume you are the target of the national team, and your baseline configuration and continuous monitoring should be sufficiently robust.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-8e84d799
· 04-20 06:25
Single sign-on verification = single point of failure, it was long overdue to implement multi-signature + multi-layer approval + risk control thresholds, at least to reduce the explosion radius.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin