SOL is attempting to steady itself after the sell-off, but a sustained rebound remains uncertain.

A cybersecurity team at a large US bank contacted Binance within hours of its Oct. 29 hack to assess the bank’s defenses. Binance said approximately $6.34 billion in digital assets were affected, and Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) supervisors began asking banks about unusual activity and service disruptions on Monday. The attackers reached Binance’s wallets through employee computers, a fake job interview and malicious software. That route gave bank security teams a reason to examine how their own staff and tools gain authority to move money. How employee access reached Binance’s wallets Binance traced the attack to a campaign that began months before the transfers. Its account describes separate compromises of three employees, with each stage giving the attackers information or access for the next. June: An engineer seeking an AI coding tool clicked a malicious search ad and installed compromised software. Binance detected and dealt with that breach, but details about the engineer and team had leaked. About three months later: A second engineer downloaded a malware-laden “assignment” during a fake job interview. The malware extracted sensitive information. Oct. 29: The attackers accessed a third engineer’s computer and launched the malicious script that sent assets out of Binance hot wallets across multiple blockchains. Binance also described an internal AI tool turned against its wallet engineers during the campaign. For a bank reviewing its own controls, the question is how an employee’s authorized tools handle instructions shaped by an attacker. Blockchain analysis firms Chainalysis and TRM Labs linked the theft to TraderTraitor, a unit associated with North Korea. The account of the attack gives security teams a sequence to test: software obtained through a search ad, a download during recruitment, stolen employee information and a script launched from an employee computer. Why supervisors checked banks so quickly Fed and OCC supervisors began contacting banks on Monday morning to ask whether they had seen unusual activity or service disruptions. One bank that received an inquiry had experienced no service disruption, prepared statements for customer questions and received few customer inquiries. The large bank’s cybersecurity team began an internal report intended to drive a review of its systems. Whether any US bank was vulnerable to the same tactics is unknown. Binance said it shared its publicly released incident report with banking partners. A bank can use the sequence in that report to check who may install software on sensitive workstations, what information a recruitment download could expose and which workstations can initiate transfers. Earlier rule changes put crypto work inside routine bank supervision The OCC’s March 2025 announcement confirmed that national banks and federal savings associations may provide crypto-asset custody , conduct certain stablecoin activities and participate in independent node verification networks. It also removed a requirement to obtain supervisory nonobjection before undertaking those activities. The OCC expects banks to have the same strong risk management controls in place to support novel bank activities as they do for traditional ones. Rodney E. Hood, Acting Comptroller of the Currency The Federal Reserve’s April 2025 announcement ended its expectation that state member banks notify it in advance of crypto-asset activities. It also withdrew a supervisory nonobjection process for dollar token activities. The Fed said it would monitor those activities through its normal supervisory process. Supervisors’ questions after the Binance theft used that channel to check for unusual activity and service disruptions at banks. Who bears the cost of the breach Binance said it had frozen or intercepted about $2.85 billion of the affected assets by its Nov. 3 incident report and replenished 98% of affected tokens from its own funds. It reopened withdrawals in stages four days after the attack, starting with bitcoin, after users had waited for access. For banks, the immediate cost is staff time spent checking systems, writing internal assessments and reviewing code. The large US bank’s pending systems review will decide whether it needs cybersecurity updates. The post Binance’s $6.3B Hack Isn’t Just An Exchange Problem appeared first on CryptoCoin.News .