Reports published on October 20 described unauthorized activity in users’ provider accounts after OpenCode’s October 17 disclosure that access to a legacy system affected 1.4% of OpenCode Console users. OpenCode said it had notified affected users by email. The reported account activity and provider responses add detail to the incident’s impact, but the dollar figures are individual accounts, not a combined total.
Which OpenCode users were affected?
OpenCode said the incident involved credentials saved with external providers in its hosted Console. Co-founder Dax Raad distinguished those credentials from keys used only in the local OpenCode application, which he said did not reach OpenCode. The company’s disclosure put the affected share at 1.4% of Console users.
NeoTeo’s earlier coverage of OpenCode’s disclosure and the reported access attempts covered the initial alert. This follow-up focuses on the account activity users later described.
The provider-account activity users reported
Colin Parsons reported $281 in OpenAI usage and $168 in Anthropic usage. Preston Zeller estimated his losses at $1,700. Another user reported more than $700 in OpenAI usage before disconnecting a key. These are separate user reports, not an audited total or a verified maximum.
What the provider responses involved
Reports described different actions by the three providers. Anthropic revoked keys it considered compromised. OpenAI worked with OpenCode to restore user access and reimburse consumed credits. Google suspended projects it identified as misusing its services.
OpenCode’s provider documentation explains that Console stores connected provider credentials and routes requests through its gateway, while the provider bills for token usage. It also treats removing a provider connection and rotating its credential as separate actions. Removing a connection from Console does not itself revoke the external key; invalidating that key requires action with the provider.
OpenCode’s explanation of the incident
OpenCode characterized the incident as a large-scale distillation attack. Later accounts said security specialists questioned whether that explanation had been established.
