DeBank A.I CyberSecurity Scoring
DeBank
Company Information
Website:https://debank.com
Employees number:14
Number of followers:1,214
NAICS:
Industry Type:Information Technology & Services
Homepage:debank.com
DeBank Risk Score (AI oriented)
Between 700 and 749
DeBankInformation Technology & Services
Updated:
08/10/2026
08/10/2026
733/1000
Moderate
Ba
DeBank Global Score (TPRM)
xxxx
DeBankInformation Technology & Services
Score locked

DeBankModerate
Current Score
733Ba (MODERATE)
01000
1 incidents
-20 avg impact
Incident timeline with MITRE ATT&CK tactics, techniques, and mitigations.
OCTOBER 2026
753
Cyber Attack
05 Oct 2026 • DeBank
OKX, Mozilla and DeBank: 16 Malicious Firefox Extensions Impersonate Crypto Wallets to Steal Seed Phrases and Private Keys
Malicious Firefox Extensions Target Cryptocurrency Wallets in Sophisticated Phishing Campaign
733
CRITICAL-20
MOZDEBOKX1791464232
Malicious Firefox Extensions Target Cryptocurrency Wallets in Sophisticated Phishing Campaign
On October 7, 2026, cybersecurity firm Socket disclosed the discovery of 16 malicious Firefox extensions designed to steal cryptocurrency wallet recovery phrases and private keys. The extensions, which impersonated legitimate wallet tools like Rabby Wallet and OKX, were unpublished by Mozilla by October 5, 2026, following Socket’s investigation.
### How the Attack Worked
The extensions masqueraded as wallet portals, desktop utilities, and browser tools, embedding malicious code within otherwise functional interfaces. Key details include:
- Deceptive Branding: Four extensions cloned Rabby Wallet, using the misspelled name "Raabby WaIIet" and retaining legitimate assets from DeBank to appear authentic. Each contained 1,114 files, including wallet import screens and transaction interfaces, making the malicious components harder to detect.
- Secret Theft Mechanisms: The extensions intercepted 12- or 24-word recovery phrases and 64-character private keys during wallet imports. Malicious hooks in background.js and 977.js captured secrets after operations like `importPrivateKey` and `createKeyringWithMnemonics`, transmitting them to attacker-controlled Cloudflare Workers via HTTPS.
- Exfiltration Methods: Stolen data was sent in GET/POST requests to domains like `silent-wind-get.icy-star-f45c[.]workers[.]dev`, often including the raw secret in the URL a risky practice that could expose it in server logs. Some extensions used navigator.sendBeacon or image-pixel GET fallbacks as redundant exfiltration paths.
- Manifest Mismatch: Despite declaring "none" for data collection permissions in their manifests, all extensions contained code to transmit wallet secrets, highlighting deliberate deception.
### Scope and Attribution
- 15 of the 16 extensions had functional theft mechanisms, while one ([email protected] v2.1) failed due to a missing manifest declaration, preventing its background script from loading.
- The campaign reused shared infrastructure, code, and a campaign marker (`EQOx7EIPZSNi`) from Socket’s August 2026 investigation, which identified 77 related extensions (40 malicious, 37 deceptive). Researchers assessed this as a continuation of the same operation, though no specific threat actor was named.
- Smaller extensions mimicked OKX Wallet onboarding screens, using official OKX help links to bolster credibility.
### Impact and Recommendations
Users who imported wallets via these extensions should assume compromise, as exposed recovery phrases and private keys cannot be invalidated by password changes. Affected individuals were advised to:
- Remove the extensions immediately.
- Create new wallets from a clean environment.
- Transfer assets to secure wallets.
Defenders can block the identified Cloudflare Worker endpoints and hunt for the campaign’s indicators of compromise (IOCs), including hashes and the marker `EQOx7EIPZSNi`. Telemetry should redact the `w` parameter to avoid logging stolen secrets. Notably, legitimate Rabby and DeBank domains are not malicious, and broad permissions alone do not indicate additional data theft.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
MOTIVATION
IMPACT
DATA BREACH
REFERENCES
SEPTEMBER 2026
753
AUGUST 2026
753
JULY 2026
753
JUNE 2026
753
MAY 2026
753
APRIL 2026
753
MARCH 2026
753
FEBRUARY 2026
753
JANUARY 2026
753
DECEMBER 2025
753
NOVEMBER 2025
753
Frequently Asked Questions
?
What is the current A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score for DeBank ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in September 2026 ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in August 2026 ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in July 2026 ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in June 2026 ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in May 2026 ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in April 2026 ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in March 2026 ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in February 2026 ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in January 2026 ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in December 2025 ??
What was DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in November 2025 ??
What is the average per-incident point impact on DeBank's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score over the past 12 months ??
Where can I access detailed records of all cyber incidents associated with DeBank ??
Where can I find a summary of the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ??
Where can I view DeBank's profile page on Rankiteo ??
How accurate is the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?