A new look at “Lucifer Drainer” shows how modern crypto drainers operate as structured “Drainer-as-a-Service” businesses—building software, cloning sites, automating deployments, and sharing profits. The operation funnels affiliates toward phishing traffic and
By the time a victim sees the familiar wallet prompt. it’s already too late for a certain kind of theft. “Lucifer Drainer. ” according to an analysis of hundreds of posts from underground channels. doesn’t rely on quietly breaking into devices. It waits for something simpler: a connection, an approval, a signature.
In recent years, cryptocurrency theft operations have shifted beyond isolated phishing pages and fake NFT mint scams. The Lucifer operation is described as a step further—an underground “Drainer-as-a-Service” ecosystem where affiliates bring victims and the service handles the draining flow once a malicious transaction or wallet signature is approved.
A crypto drainer is designed to steal cryptocurrency assets directly from victims’ wallets by abusing wallet permissions and transaction approvals. Instead of hacking the wallet itself. attackers lure people to fake crypto. NFT. airdrop. DeFi. or token-claim websites and trick them into connecting their wallets. Once permission is granted. the drainer can automatically transfer tokens. NFTs. or other digital assets from the victim’s wallet to attacker-controlled wallets. often within seconds and across multiple blockchains.
The key difference in this model is that draining is packaged and operationalized—built like software products, not one-off tricks.
The dataset. compiled by Flare researchers from approximately 700 posts collected from underground forums. chats. and channels related to “Lucifer DaaS” between January 2025 and early 2026. is presented as a rare view into how modern drainer operations work internally. The findings describe a professionalized ecosystem focused on affiliate growth, automation, phishing scalability, wallet-security bypasses, and operational resilience.
Lucifer’s operators discussed software releases, bug fixes, affiliate commissions, customer support, hosting recommendations, deployment automation, website cloning, and referral systems—language that, in the analysis, makes the operation sound less like a crew and more like a business.
The Lucifer team repeatedly framed participation in the service as commission-based rather than a one-time sale. In a promotional post. the actor described affiliates as providing “traffic through phishing links. fake websites. and similar methods. ” while the service manages “signatures. approvals. and token transfers.” The same post described Lucifer Drainer as a “professional solution” with ERC20 support. Permit2. off-chain signatures. wallet-security bypasses. multichain support. and continued product updates.
Lucifer’s Telegram channel then reinforced the business model. Lucifer states that the software is “not for sale,” and that the operators take a 20% commission from successful “hits.” In May 2025, the channel wrote that it does not sell or lease the software and only splits “20% per hit.”
In March 2025, the group announced version 6.6.6—advertising ERC20 support, Permit2 abuse, off-chain signatures, Telegram notifications, wallet-security bypasses, and multichain functionality. After that point, the channel increasingly read like a development feed.
The operators announced bug fixes, wallet compatibility updates, Telegram-browser support, deployment improvements, and hosting features. One of the most notable additions was a website-cloning feature that allowed affiliates to clone phishing pages and receive ZIP files preloaded with the latest Lucifer code.
Later updates moved toward automation. Updates introduced “Zero Config” deployment workflows: affiliates could upload static files, automatically generate phishing-ready packages, and deploy infrastructure with minimal manual work—lowering the technical barrier for affiliates.
The dataset also shows Lucifer recruiting across underground communities where other drainer brands such as Inferno. Angel. Venom. Nova. Ghost. Medusa. Vega. and Monkey were discussed. A recurring theme across the posts was “traffic.” The operators emphasized that affiliates needed victims and phishing distribution capabilities more than advanced technical skills.
At the same time, the group warned that complete beginners were not welcome, suggesting it prioritized experienced affiliates capable of generating reliable phishing traffic with limited operational overhead.
Then came the part that makes takedown attempts feel like a moving target. In August 2025, Lucifer’s Telegram bots were banned. The group instructed users in their channel to create new bots and grant them admin privileges. and also gave instructions for resolving configuration problems after migration.
In November 2025, Lucifer said a documentation domain hosted on Google Firebase had been suspended after research reports. The group responded by moving documentation to InterPlanetary File System, presenting decentralization as a way to keep operations running after takedowns.
The broader point in the analysis is that drainers became attractive because they mirror how modern crypto crime fits today’s pace. Crypto assets are liquid and fast-moving, and once transferred they are often irreversible. Attackers don’t need to compromise a bank portal or wait for a mule account. With a successful wallet approval, the drain can happen immediately—even within seconds.
The user experience is also part of the lure. Wallet prompts, approvals, signatures, permits, and token allowances are hard for many people to parse. The operation exploits that confusion by making malicious prompts look like routine Web3 interactions.
Abuse of authorization mechanisms—Permit and Permit2—appears especially valuable. These mechanisms can allow token transfers through signed permissions rather than obvious direct transfers. That can make user interaction feel less alarming while still providing an attacker a path to assets.
Lucifer is presented as one piece of a larger ecosystem. The analysis describes Lucifer as part of underground competition for affiliates. traffic. and visibility. with drainer services functioning increasingly like legitimate SaaS businesses. Instead of selling a static phishing kit. DaaS operators maintain active platforms designed to simplify deployment. reduce technical barriers. and maximize affiliate efficiency.
Features such as website cloning, automated ZIP deployment, “Zero Config” workflows, affiliate commissions, and support channels are described as competitive advantages—building a repeatable model that becomes harder to disrupt as it scales.
For everyday users trying to stay out of the cycle, the analysis lays out warning signs. Watch for wallet connection requests immediately on a crypto/NFT/airdrop site; unexpected signature or “Approve” requests before receiving anything; requests for unlimited token approvals or Permit/Permit2 permissions; and “gasless claim” or “off-chain signature” prompts that still require wallet approval. It also points to fake urgency—“claim now. ” “wallet verification. ” “limited mint. ” “expiring rewards”—and links arriving through Telegram. Discord. X/Twitter DMs. or fake support accounts.
More red flags include recently created or suspicious-looking crypto domains; websites cloned from legitimate DeFi. NFT. or exchange platforms; multiple redirects before the wallet prompt; and wallet warnings that are ignored or bypassed. It also calls out using a main wallet with large holdings for unknown Web3 sites. repeated prompts to reconnect or re-sign transactions. and influencer or project accounts pushing unexpected mint/claim links.
The analysis further warns about browser tabs that open new wallet approval windows automatically. transaction details that are vague or difficult to understand. and “free NFT” or “free token” campaigns requiring approvals first. It flags Discord or Telegram admins privately messaging users first. websites asking users to disable wallet security protections. and wallets drained immediately after signing a message instead of sending funds manually.
Finally, it highlights pressure tactics: platforms pushing users to act fast before verifying legitimacy.
Flare says it provides early visibility into fraud operations before they reach victims by monitoring underground forums. Telegram channels. and marketplaces. detecting leaked data. victim lists. and recruitment activity tied to Caller-as-a-Service campaigns. The outlet says this allows organizations to proactively respond—reset credentials. alert users. and strengthen defenses—before attackers strike. reducing both risk and impact.
The Lucifer dataset doesn’t just map how drainers work. It shows a service built to keep working—versioned releases. cloning tools. “Zero Config” deployment. and fast pivots when Telegram bots are banned or documentation goes dark. In that world, the most important moment still looks ordinary: a wallet prompt that people assume they can safely approve.
Lucifer Drainer Drainer-as-a-Service crypto drainer Permit2 off-chain signatures wallet approvals phishing Telegram channel Zero Config deployment website cloning cybersecurity