A newly registered domain invoking Sonic Labs’ name and a token-claim theme has been flagged by three security vendors, according to a preserved October 19 investigation by PhishDestroy. The site, claim-soniclabs[.]app, was registered on October 14 and captured by researchers five days later.
PhishDestroy’s retained VirusTotal scan shows three of 92 security engines detecting the domain, including ChainPatrol, alphaMountain.ai and Chong Lua Dao. The service assigned it a 65 out of 100 evidence-risk score and added it to its own phishing watchlist. The publicly available material does not independently demonstrate a malicious wallet signature, a successful drain, a victim count or stolen funds.
The timing is notable because Sonic Labs has an existing token-claim ecosystem and published an October 15 cutoff for remaining allocations from earlier airdrop seasons. But the domain’s name and proximity to that date do not establish that its operator used the deadline in an actual phishing campaign.
What Did the October 19 Security Scan Find?
The PhishDestroy domain investigation records a NiceNIC registration created October 14, 2026, and a primary page capture at 06:17 UTC on October 19. The earliest preserved scan therefore arrived about five days after registration; neither timestamp proves when a page was first served to the public.
At 06:18 UTC the same day, a VirusTotal analysis returned detections from three of 92 security vendors. Those vendors were ChainPatrol, alphaMountain.ai and Chong Lua Dao. The list represents independent security tools reporting on one domain, not evidence of three separate scams or three confirmed compromises.
PhishDestroy classifies the hostname as a high-risk candidate and records a 65/100 score. The score is a classification output from the security provider; it should not be read as a 65% probability of theft or as an independent audit of a wallet-draining contract.
The report also shows a Google Safe Browsing check that did not flag the hostname during the retained observation. A negative result from one provider does not overturn the positive detections from other tools. Differences in timing, detection signatures and data coverage are common when young domains enter threat-intelligence feeds.
Unlike an incident report based on confirmed transactions, this is primarily a domain and scanner-evidence story. Public records reviewed did not identify a victim’s transaction hash, attacker-controlled wallet, malicious approval request or a quantified loss linked to the hostname.
Why Would a Sonic Labs Claim Address Attract Attention?
Sonic Labs operates an EVM-compatible blockchain ecosystem and has used token incentives to encourage activity. Its official Sonic airdrop documentation describes claim processes for eligible participants, while an April 2026 company notice established October 15 as the final date for claiming remaining locked allocations from earlier seasons.
That creates a recognizable vocabulary for attackers to imitate: “claim,” token rewards, eligibility, unlocking and wallet connection. A visitor who has previously interacted with Sonic’s authentic airdrop interfaces may be more inclined to believe that a new claim page is part of the same process.
However, the hostname itself is the principal claim-themed element documented in the current case. Investigators have not publicly established that the captured page actually offered a token reward, replicated Sonic’s official design or solicited a particular wallet approval. Naming conventions support a suspicion of impersonation, not an exhaustive reconstruction of on-page behavior.
Nor is this evidence that Sonic Labs’ official systems have been breached. A third party can register a brand-like address without access to the project’s infrastructure. Users should obtain claim information directly from the project’s verified documentation rather than assuming that a similarly named domain is endorsed by its developers.
Do Three VirusTotal Detections Prove a Wallet Drainer Exists?
No. Three positive verdicts justify closer inspection, particularly when one comes from a crypto-focused threat-detection service. But most of the engines in the snapshot did not flag this hostname, and the available evidence stops short of demonstrating its transaction-level behavior.
A fraudulent claim page might attempt to lure a user into signing an ERC-20 token allowance, a gasless permit, an NFT operator approval or a direct transfer. It could also ask for a recovery phrase or redirect the visitor to a separate site. Each mechanism creates different risks, and none should be attributed to this particular domain without supporting forensic evidence.
For context, DaveFinances’ wallet-scam investigation explains why a simple website connection is not equivalent to signing an unlimited token approval or exposing a seed phrase. The economically important question is the power the wallet grants, not merely which buttons appear on the website.
Detection counts also require care. A result such as 3/92 is a snapshot of vendor classifications at a specific time, not a measured attack success rate, a prevalence estimate or an indication that the 89 remaining products have certified the site as legitimate.
Previous DaveFinances reporting on a suspicious Ledger-themed page that evaded several blocklists illustrates why a site may be detected by some services but not others. This new Sonic-related observation does not establish that cloaking or the same infrastructure was used here.
Does Registration or Hosting Reveal Who Operates the Site?
PhishDestroy lists NiceNIC International Group as registrar and Cloudflare nameservers, with a resolved IP address of 188.114.97.3. That IP belongs to shared edge infrastructure. It is not a unique identifier for the website’s creator, location, payment destination or campaign operator.
It would therefore be misleading to infer that the apparent geographic location of the server identifies the attacker, or that every site on the same Cloudflare edge belongs to the same organization. A registrar relationship also does not imply that the registrar endorses the site’s content.
The domain’s age increases the need for verification when paired with a familiar project name, but new registration is not illegal or inherently malicious. In this case, the security-vendor alerts and brand-like wording are the relevant combined signals.
The broader attack pattern has appeared in confirmed but technically distinct incidents. A fake Zano wallet website previously distributed a malicious installer during a genuine network recovery, according to the affected project. That example shows how a real project event can create opportunities for impersonators; it does not establish a common attacker or malware type for claim-soniclabs[.]app.
What Can Sonic Users Do, and What Evidence Is Still Missing?
The practical precaution is to treat a newly discovered claim link as untrusted until it has been verified through Sonic Labs’ longstanding official website, documentation or an authenticated announcement. A message claiming a forgotten reward or requiring urgent wallet verification should not override the actual claim timetable published by the project.
Someone who visited a suspicious page but signed nothing faces a different risk from someone who authorized a token transfer or revealed a recovery phrase. Users can inspect recent wallet activity and allowances through reputable tools reached independently. If a recovery phrase was disclosed, the underlying wallet keys should be treated as compromised and any remaining recoverable assets moved using a trusted device and newly generated credentials.
For investigators, the next steps are to preserve the full page and scripts, identify any external wallet-connect endpoints, record the exact transaction prompts, and determine whether any victim reports or blockchain flows are attributable to the domain. Comparing those artifacts with other suspicious Sonic-themed sites could establish connections, but a similar name or shared hosting alone is inadequate.
The verified October 19 development is a documented domain capture and three security detections against a hostname registered on October 14. The case raises a timely impersonation warning for the Sonic ecosystem, but it is not a confirmed account of stolen tokens, compromised official infrastructure or a live campaign beginning on October 19.
Johan Shamshad is a financial markets writer at Dave Finances covering cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, financial regulation, and developments across global markets. He previously worked at Gulf News, adding newsroom experience to his coverage of fast-moving financial and digital-asset markets.
His work focuses on identifying market-moving events, company developments, regulatory changes, product launches, and shifts in trading and financial infrastructure.
Johan contributes news and analysis designed to help readers understand not only what happened, but why a development matters and how it may affect the wider financial landscape. You can reach out to him via his social media accounts:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johan-shamshad-742851262/
X: https://x.com/Yasmine_FX
Investing: https://www.investing.com/members/contributors/279781574