From October 24 to 26, the XCM executors responsible for cross-chain messaging on the Polkadot Asset Hub were precisely pried open. The attackers did not roughly use account balances but instead created an abnormal state at the ledger level by manipulating the "accounting issuance" of dollar-pegged dotUSD, resulting in a situation where only issuance decreased without affecting balances, leading to an imbalance in the pricing of the DOT/dotUSD liquidity pool and instant entry into arbitrage opportunities. According to a single Chinese media report, as the sole liquidity provider for this pool, the Polkadot treasury alone incurred a loss of approximately $1.381 million in this mispricing, a figure that has not yet been independently verified by official or on-chain data. Even more painful is the fact that the relevant XCM code had completed its fix as early as June 2026, yet it had not been deployed to the actual operating environment of the Asset Hub. At almost the same time, on the other end of the timeline, India’s national agency CERT-In updated its notice, formally naming a type of AI-assisted attacker targeting financial institutions as "CRAFTY FALCON," noting that cryptocurrency exchanges and virtual digital asset service providers are also potentially within the victim scope, describing how they exploit exposed testing environments and shared credentials to move laterally between test and production, until obtaining wallet keys and transferring funds. One is an old vulnerability that has been fixed but not deployed, and the other is an evolving AI attack chain, paralleling in the security narrative of 2026, pointing to the same issue: when the rhythm of fixing and responding falls behind the attack, even the most sophisticated protocols and the largest treasuries struggle to maintain security in the face of time delays.
dotUSD Pool Arbitraged: Treasury Bears the Cost
In the path of the attack on the Polkadot Asset Hub, what was truly manipulated was not the user account balances but the "accounting issuance" of dotUSD. The attackers exploited the XCM execution logic associated with dotUSD, managing to reduce the total issuance recorded at the system level, while deliberately not altering any address's balance records. The result was that, on paper, dotUSD appeared more "scarce," and under this misaligned state, the DOT/dotUSD liquidity pool continued to match prices, with the pricing within the pool beginning to systematically deviate from normal levels, opening space for arbitragers who understood this accounting difference.
The problem is that this arbitrage space, squeezed out by mispricing, almost exclusively confronted the same counterpart. The sole liquidity provider for the relevant DOT/dotUSD pool is the Polkadot treasury. When the dotUSD in the pool is overvalued by the system and DOT is undervalued, the repeated arbitrage trades result in direct losses reflected on treasury assets. According to estimates from a single Chinese media outlet, this round of mispriced arbitrage could lead to a loss of approximately $1.381 million, but this figure currently lacks official clarification and is devoid of independent accounting support based on on-chain data; all that can be confirmed externally is the consequence of erroneous pricing borne solely by the treasury.
XCM Vulnerability and Asset Hub Risks
If the treasury's loss is viewed as a symptom, then the root cause lies deeper in the protocol layer: the target of the attack was indeed the XCM component that carries cross-chain execution, as well as its home, the Asset Hub. XCM (cross-consensus messaging) is the key channel used by Polkadot to transmit assets and information between different consensus systems. Typically, users only see smooth cross-chain transfers and calls, but behind the scenes, this executor is "moving states" between different chains. Once this channel itself is manipulated, the errors are no longer confined to a particular parallel chain; they can potentially spread along the message path to a broader asset environment.
The Asset Hub stands in the position with the highest capital density, responsible for hosting various on-chain assets and carrying the operational environment of dotUSD, directly connected to the safety of Polkadot treasury assets. This exploitation occurred at the intersection of asset custody and cross-chain execution, where attackers rewrote the accounting issuance of dotUSD without touching account balances, ultimately leveraging the DOT/dotUSD pool, which is solely provided with liquidity by the treasury. Such a singular breach should not occur on known issues — the relevant XCM code had reportedly been fixed in June 2026, yet the fix was never deployed to the Asset Hub before the incident, creating a time gap that turned an engineering change into a governance and operational collaboration void, exposing the most critical vulnerability in the architecture to real-world attacks.
India Warns of CRAFTY FALCON Targeting Exchanges
As Polkadot pays the price for a delayed fix, another narrative of attack has formed in India's security announcements. The national agency CERT-In, in its latest announcement, formally named a type of AI-assisted financial attacker "CRAFTY FALCON." Compared to earlier warnings that only concerned traditional financial institutions, this notice directly included cryptocurrency exchanges and virtual digital asset service providers on the threat list, alerting these organizations that manage large amounts of on-chain wallets and private keys are also under the crosshairs of this attack chain.
In CERT-In's description, CRAFTY FALCON appears more like a series of processes rather than a single hacker: the attack begins from a testing environment exposed to the internet, leveraging application vulnerabilities present in it to gain initial control; subsequently, the attackers rely on shared credentials and access tokens repeatedly reused within the organization, moving laterally between test and production environments until they gain access to the production system entry points. Once inside the wallet system that holds actual user assets, the ultimate goal becomes just two tasks: steal wallet keys and then transfer funds out. The announcement explicitly points out that such attack activities are still on the rise, but neither the list of victim organizations nor the scale of losses has been revealed, leaving an expanding threat profile that forces all named exchanges and service providers to envision themselves in this already established attack path.
The Time Gap Between Fixes and Deployments Becomes a Security Pain Point
In this incident involving Polkadot, what is truly deadly is not that no one noticed the problem, but rather "the fix was completed, yet it could not be deployed to production in time." The vulnerability code related to XCM was already fixed in June 2026, yet the Asset Hub operating environment still used the old version executors from October 24 to 26, and the attackers exploited this time window, manipulating the accounting issuance of dotUSD, causing price imbalance in the DOT/dotUSD pool, allowing the treasury, serving as the sole liquidity provider, to bear an estimated loss of about $1.381 million according to media estimates. The several-month time gap between the fix and deployment represented, in the eyes of the attackers, a "floating asset" with coordinates already marked.
CERT-In's announcement regarding "CRAFTY FALCON" also reveals the same type of defense lag: testing environments long exposed to the internet, shared credentials and access tokens reused between test and production provide attackers with a ready channel to move laterally from edge systems to wallet systems, while the defenders' handling rhythm of these basic operational issues evidently lags behind the evolution of attacks. Against the backdrop of accelerating AI-assisted attacks, once patches, environmental configurations, or authentication documents appear in any public or semi-public form, attackers can rapidly identify differences and scan targets that have yet to upgrade, converting these commonplace engineering realities such as "completed fixes yet not deployed," "misalignment of testing and production environments," and "high-privilege credentials reused across multiple environments" into structural risks. Going forward, what deserves medium to long-term observation is no longer about what specific actions a project should take, but whether the entire industry can genuinely shorten the time gaps between fixes, deployments, and operations across three dimensions: upgrade processes, testing environment exposures, and credential management habits, thereby shifting security rhythm from passively following attacks back to a trajectory of proactive control.
From Singular Incidents to Observations on Industry Security Upgrades
From the Polkadot treasury bearing losses in the DOT/dotUSD pool alone, to CERT-In naming AI attack warnings for "CRAFTY FALCON," these two threads in 2026 point to the same weak link: core execution components and daily operational processes. Once time gaps are drawn between fixes, deployments, and controls, they magnify into system-level risks. The fix code for the XCM executor on the Polkadot Asset Hub was completed in June, but not deployed in time, allowing the attackers to manipulate the accounting issuance of dotUSD between October 24 and 26 without changing account balances, resulting in a price imbalance in DOT/dotUSD and imposing an estimated loss of about $1.381 million solely on the treasury, which serves as the only liquidity provider. This tightly coupled design between cross-chain execution components and treasury asset pools has been concentratedly exposed in this incident. As of November 5, 2026, publicly available materials have yet to show that Polkadot has fully disclosed a review of the details and specific remedial paths, while on the other side, although CERT-In has included cryptocurrency exchanges and virtual digital asset service providers within the attack scope of "CRAFTY FALCON" in the latest announcement, the detailed list of victim organizations and cases of loss have likewise not been disclosed. However, the outlined attack chain—from exposure in testing environments to movement between testing and production using shared credentials until wallet keys are stolen and funds are moved—has already bracketed testing environments, shared credentials, and production wallets as high-risk areas that need continuous scrutiny. What will be worth closely observing next is whether Polkadot and other public chains are willing to openly review process gaps in cross-chain executors, treasury asset pools, and change processes, as well as how major exchanges will respond to the national CERT's AI attack warnings in terms of deployment strategies, testing environment isolation, and credential management. Whether these subsequent actions can genuinely alter the rhythm between fixes, deployments, and operations will become a key variable in measuring whether the safety level of the crypto industry can advance after 2026.
Join our community for discussions and to empower each other!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram Community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain Community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin On-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
