Please be careful when revoking tokens. It looks like the payload installs a dead-man's switch at ~/.local/bin/gh-token-monitor.sh as a systemd user service (Linux) / LaunchAgent com.user.gh-token-monitor(macOS). It polls api.github.com/user with the stolen token every 60s, and if the token is revoked (HTTP 40x), it runs rm -rf ~/.
Only if the goal is to actually spread fear in a civilian population. It's not clear what the motivation is here besides "the worm spreads itself lol".
It is unfortunate, but this is evidence (IMO) that Trusted Publishing is still ~~not secure~~ not enough by itself to securely publish from CI, as an attacker inside your CI pipeline or with stolen repo admin creds can easily publish. This isnt new information, TP is not meant to guarantee against this, but migrating to TP away from local publish w/ 2fa introduces this class of attack via compomise of CI. (edit: changed "still not secure" to "still not enough by itself" bc that is the point I want to make)
Going to Trusted Publishing / pipeline publishing removes the second factor that typically gates npm publish when working locally.
The story here, while it is evolving, seems to be that the attacker compromised the CI/CD pipeline, and because there is no second factor on the npm publish, they were able to steal the OIDC token and complete a publish.
Interesting, but unrelated I suppose, is that the publish job failed. So the payload that was in the malicious commit must have had a script that was able to publish itself w/ the OIDC token from the workflow.
What I want is CI publishing to still have a second factor outside of Github, while still relying on the long lived token-less Trusted Publisher model. AKA, what I want is staged publishing, so someone must go and use 2fa to promote an artifact to published on the npm side.
Otherwise, if a publish can happen only within the Github trust model, anyone who pwns either a repo admin token or gets malicious code into your pipeline can trivially complete a publish. With a true second factor outside the Github context, they can still do a lot of damage to your repo or plant malicious code, but at least they would not be able to publish without getting your second factor for the registry.
I'd like to have touch to sign from a YubiKey or similar. The whole idea of trusting the cloud to manage credentials on your behalf seems like a mistake.
I'm looking forward to the analysis how the attacker managed to compromise CI. I was reading through the workflow and what immediately jumped out was a cache poisoning attack. Seems plausible, given https://github.com/TanStack/config/pull/381
edit: two hard things in computer science: naming things, cache invalidation, off-by-one errors, security. something something
The astral blog recently pointed out how they do release gates (manual approvals on release workflows) even with trusted publishing. And sadly, all of the documentation for trusted publishing (NPM/PyPi/Rubygems) doesn't even mention this possibility, let alone defaulting to it.
I have not read that blog post. But unfortunately (and I'd love to be wrong!) it doesn't matter for if a repo admin's token gets exfiled, because if you put your gates within Github, an admin repo token is sufficient to defang all of them from the API without 2fa challenge.
That is why I want 2fa before publish at the registry, because with my gh cli token as a repo admin, an attacker can disable all the Github branch protection, rewrite my workflows, disable the required reviewers on environments (which is one method people use for 2fa for releases, have workflows run in a GH environment whcih requires approval and prevents self review), enable self review, etc etc.
Its what I call a "fox in the hen house" problem, where you have your security gates within the same trust model as you expect to get stolen (in this case, having repo admin token exfiled from my local machine)
> We impose tag protection rules that prevent release tags from being created until a release deployment succeeds, with the release deployment itself being gated on a manual approval by at least one other team member. We also prevent the updating or deletion of tags, making them effectively immutable once created. On top of that we layer a branch restriction: release deployments may only be created against main, preventing an attacker from using an unrelated first-party branch to attempt to bypass our controls.
I tested approving a deployment via API last week w/ my gh cli token (well, had claude do it while I watched). Again, I really want to be wrong about this, but my testing showed that it is indeed trivial to use the default token from my gh cli to approve via API. (repo admin scope, which I have bc I am admin on said repo)
Nothing in this link [1] proves what I said, but it is the test repo I was just conducting this on, and it was an approval gated GHA job that I had claude approve using my GH cli token
I also had claude use the same token to first reconfigure the enviornment to enable self-approves (I had configured it off manually before testing). It also put it back to self approve disabled when it was done hehe
Both of these need `repo` scope, which you can avoid giving on org-level repos. For fine-grained tokens: "Deployments" repository permissions (write) is needed, which I wouldn't usually give to a token.
This sort of mitigation seems like it makes sense in the short term, but it seems like it would only work as long as most people don't do it. If everyone has this set to seven days, it will take seven days plus three hours to get things yanked, and then there will be people who will set to 14 days...
This confused me too, until I realized that the article is about pnpm, not npm (pnpm reads .npmrc for some reason, despite not having the same options as npm)
On a related note, it seems to be impossible to find the documentation of min-release-age by googling it. Very annoying.
Npm's package-lock.json already handles pinning everything to exact versions, including subdependencies. Pinning exact versions in package.json doesn't affect your subdependencies.
> it used to be that projects that pinned deps were called out as being less secure due to not being able to receive updates without a publish.
This is still the right advice for libraries. For security it doesn’t matter a whole lot anymore as package managers can force the transitive dependencies version, but it allows for much better transitive dependency de duplication.
For non-libraries it doesn’t matter as the exact versions get pinned in the package-lock.
- Python inline dependencies in PEP-0723, which you can pin with a==1.0, but can't be hash-pinned afaik.
- The bin package manager lets you pin binaries, but they aren't hash-pinned either.
- The pants build tool suggests vendoring a get-pants.sh script[0] but it downloads the latest. Even if you pass it a version, it doesn't do any checks on the version number and just installs it to ~/.local/bin
The malware uses a "prepare" hook to use bun to run the payload, an attack that ironically enough, bun is immune to. Enabling lifecycle scripts in dependencies by default in 2026 is just plain malpractice.
Postinstall scripts are deadly.
Everyone should be using pnpm.
Crazy that an "orphan" commit pushed to a FORK(!) could trigger this (in npm clients). IMO GitHub deserves much of the blame here. A malicious fork's commits are reachable via GitHub's shared object storage at a URI indistinguishable from the legit repo. That is absolutely bonkers.
Once you run your app with the updated dependencies, that code is executed anyway. And root or non-root doesn't matter, the important stuff is available as the user running the application anyway.
Or a vm per container, if you insist on containers. I've have a couple of relaxed weeks recently due to running everything on VMs rather than some random Kubernetes service.
The Mini Shai-Hulud worm is actively compromising legitimate npm packages by hijacking CI/CD pipelines and stealing developer secrets. StepSecurity's OSS Package Security Feed first detected the attack in official @tanstack packages and is tracking its spread across the ecosystem in real time.
1. _Multiple third-party companies_ can detect these obviously malicious packages in almost-real-time
2. NPM still not only publishes them, but also keeps distributing them for anything beyond 5 minutes.
Microsoft/GitHub/NPM can only keep repeating "security is our top priority" so many times. But NPM still doesn't detect these simple attacks, and we keep having this every week.
> Please be careful when revoking tokens. It looks like the payload installs a dead-man's switch at ~/.local/bin/gh-token-monitor.sh as a systemd user service (Linux) / LaunchAgent com.user.gh-token-monitor(macOS). It polls api.github.com/user with the stolen token every 60s, and if the token is revoked (HTTP 40x), it runs rm -rf ~/. (It looks like it might also have a bunch of persistence mechanisms. I haven't studied these closely.)
> it installs that commit's declared dependencies (which include bun) and then runs its prepare lifecycle script
Again? How have lifecycle scripts not instantly been defaulted off? Yes breaking things is bad, but come on, this keeps happening, the fix is easy, and if an *javascript* build relies of dependendlcy of dependency's pulled build time script, then it's worth paying in braincells or tokens to digure it out and fix the biold process, or lately uncover an exploit chain. This isn't even a compiled language.
My decision to abandon the JS ecosystem and language entirely continues to pay off. What a mess...
I am, however, concerned that this will pwn my workplace. We don't use Tanstack but this seems self-propagating and I doubt all of our dependencies are doing enough to prevent it.
Cargo is spiritually based on NPM so it's not much better.
Go Get is closer to always locking dependencies unless you explicitly upgrade them with a go get, so it's much much better in my view.
Yes, you can lock deps in NPM/Cargo/etc. but that's not the default. It is the default in Go.
In Go projects my policy for upgrading dependencies includes running full AI audit of all code changed across all dependencies, comes out to ~$200 in tokens every time but it gives those warm 'not likely to get pwned' vibes. And it comes with a nice report of likely breaking changes etc.
BTW a curated mirror of <whatever ecosystem> packages, where every package is guaranteed to have been analyzed and tested, could be an easy sell now. Also relatively easy to create, with the help of AI. A $200 every time is less pleasant than, say, $100/mo for the entire org.
Docker does something vaguely similar for Docker images, for free though.
People are already scanning npm constantly. You can limit yourself to pre-scanned packages by setting npm's minimum release age setting to 1 or 2 days (a timeframe that all the recent high-profile malicious package versions were unpublished within).
Note to self: the test suite for vetting a package should include setting the system date some time in the future, to check if an exploit is trying to sleep long enough to defeat the age limit.
It's insane to me you spend $200 on a report you likely rarely read in detail or double check for correctness, yet you're doing it to feel good about security.
If it runs in a harness that will alert me when something dodgy is detected I'm fine to stay at that level.
I don't read it in detail because reading in detail is precisely what I delegate to the harness. The alternative is that I delegate all this trust to package managers and the maintainers which quite clearly is a bad idea.
Whether the $$ pricetag is worth it is.. relative. Also in Go you don't update all that often, really when something either breaks or there is a legitimate security reason to do so, which in deep systems software is quite infrequent.
Funnily enough for frontend NPM code our policy was to never ever upgrade and run with locked dependencies, running few years old JS deps. For internal dashboards it was perfectly fine, never missed a feature and never had a supply chain close call.
Even linux was subjected to an attack in xz utils. Granted it is much harder and they have a much better auditing problem (something npm should learn from). There really isn't a silver bullet here unfortunately. The industry as a whole needs to get more serious about this.
There's no silver bullet, but getting an exploit into xz took extraordinary effort, a long time, and bespoke code, because it needed to slip under the radar of actual humans reading the code. A shai hulud-style attack won't work with any reasonable Linux distro, like it does with npm.
Exactly, the only real way to escape this madness is if we move back to "Standard Libs" where your project only depends on 1-3 core libraries. For example, .NET and Java are almost entire 'kitchen sink' ecosystems. Arguably for simple projects, Go has a fairly large standard lib.
There are npm supply chain exploits in the news every other day. I'm honestly surprised that something as decentralized as Go Modules is more reliable, but here we are. The fact that we're not seeing these stories about e.g. Maven is not at all surprising, given the limited need for third party libraries and the culture of careful upgrades in the Java ecosystem. If npm proponents want the ecosystem to survive, they need to demand / create better and stop making excuses.
I highly recommend enforcing a minimum dependency release age of at least a week across all package managers used at your workplace. Most package managers support it now, and it will save you from the vast majority of these attacks.
Highly recommend using the minimum release age setting, though I think a week is probably overkill. Did any of the recent supply-chain attacks have a malicious version up for more than a day?
Once again, Shai-Hulud wrecking havock in the Javascript and Typescript ecosystems via NPM.
One of the worst ecosystems that has been brought into the software industry and it is almost always via NPM. Not even Cargo (Rust) or go mod (Golang) get as many attacks because at least with the latter, they encourage you to use the standard library.
Both Javascript and Typescript have none and want you to import hundreds of libraries, increasing the risk of a supply chain attack.
I wonder whether NPM has surpassed the costs of the billion dollar mistake, null references. NPM hasn't been around as long, but the industry is much bigger today than it was when systems languages were dominant.
The Standard C library is also very small. Even though there’s POSIX, for anything that’s not system programming, you will be using libraries.
The difference is that the usual C libraries don’t split the project into small molecules for no good reasons. You have to be as big as GTK to start splitting library in my opinion.
People have for years. The real question is do people enjoy not putting any thought into their super convenient JavaScript stack too much to actually do anything about it. Delaying updating to new packages assuming the vulnerability will be discovered in two days or whatever is putting a knee brace on a leg that needs to be amputated. Sooner or later there will be a vulnerability good enough to not be caught in a couple days, or a zero-day damaging enough that not updating immediately is a huge risk. Assuming they won’t be in anything critical enough to disastrously compromise your stack is wishful thinking at its finest.
The part that always gets me is I tend to only install a few packages like React and maybe some kind of data access layer. But you let that recurse down a few levels and suddenly you've installed a thousand packages, some of them hopelessly obsolete, some of them for patently stupid things that are 1 line of code, etc, etc. I.E. you can't choose to be thoughtful if the main entry points into the language are all built on a pile of garbage.
Now that npm supports --before, yarn supports npmMinimumAge, and pnpm supports minimumReleaseAge, it's quite possible to stay safe and avoid acciasional bleeding-edge upgrades. Stay a couple months into the past, give testers time to look at newer releases and vet their safety (or report an exploit attempt).
npm's immaturity is arguably demonstrated by the fact it is always catching up.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but signed packages are still impractical in NPM which is why supply chain attacks still work by editing existing versions or pushing new point releases without a signature.
Or if you put all of the credentials in GitHub actions which is even more trivially exploitable through the actions marketplace because it is just git with a thin proxy, you have an even wider attack vector
https://github.com/TanStack/router/issues/7383#issuecomment-...
the GitHub bot law: the GitHub bot situation is way worse than you imagine even if you are aware of the GitHub bot law.
yes, a cheap parody on Hofstadter's law, but that's how bad it is
Going to Trusted Publishing / pipeline publishing removes the second factor that typically gates npm publish when working locally.
The story here, while it is evolving, seems to be that the attacker compromised the CI/CD pipeline, and because there is no second factor on the npm publish, they were able to steal the OIDC token and complete a publish.
Interesting, but unrelated I suppose, is that the publish job failed. So the payload that was in the malicious commit must have had a script that was able to publish itself w/ the OIDC token from the workflow.
What I want is CI publishing to still have a second factor outside of Github, while still relying on the long lived token-less Trusted Publisher model. AKA, what I want is staged publishing, so someone must go and use 2fa to promote an artifact to published on the npm side.
Otherwise, if a publish can happen only within the Github trust model, anyone who pwns either a repo admin token or gets malicious code into your pipeline can trivially complete a publish. With a true second factor outside the Github context, they can still do a lot of damage to your repo or plant malicious code, but at least they would not be able to publish without getting your second factor for the registry.
edit: two hard things in computer science: naming things, cache invalidation, off-by-one errors, security. something something
That is why I want 2fa before publish at the registry, because with my gh cli token as a repo admin, an attacker can disable all the Github branch protection, rewrite my workflows, disable the required reviewers on environments (which is one method people use for 2fa for releases, have workflows run in a GH environment whcih requires approval and prevents self review), enable self review, etc etc.
Its what I call a "fox in the hen house" problem, where you have your security gates within the same trust model as you expect to get stolen (in this case, having repo admin token exfiled from my local machine)
> We impose tag protection rules that prevent release tags from being created until a release deployment succeeds, with the release deployment itself being gated on a manual approval by at least one other team member. We also prevent the updating or deletion of tags, making them effectively immutable once created. On top of that we layer a branch restriction: release deployments may only be created against main, preventing an attacker from using an unrelated first-party branch to attempt to bypass our controls.
> https://astral.sh/blog/open-source-security-at-astral
From what I understand, you need a website login, and not a stolen API token to approve a deployment.
But I agree in principle - The registry should be able to enforce web-2fa. But the defaults can be safer as well.
Nothing in this link [1] proves what I said, but it is the test repo I was just conducting this on, and it was an approval gated GHA job that I had claude approve using my GH cli token
I also had claude use the same token to first reconfigure the enviornment to enable self-approves (I had configured it off manually before testing). It also put it back to self approve disabled when it was done hehe
[1] https://github.com/jonchurch/deploy-env-test/actions/runs/25...
https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/workflow-runs?apiVer...
Also for a Pending Deployment: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions/workflow-runs#review...
Both of these need `repo` scope, which you can avoid giving on org-level repos. For fine-grained tokens: "Deployments" repository permissions (write) is needed, which I wouldn't usually give to a token.
https://gajus.com/blog/3-pnpm-settings-to-protect-yourself-f...
Just a handful of settings to save a whole lot of trouble.
Completely unforced fragmentation of the dependency manager space imo
On a related note, it seems to be impossible to find the documentation of min-release-age by googling it. Very annoying.
If I see a package version dependency that looks like this: ^1.0.0 or even this: "*", then stop reading, pin it to a secure version immediately.
it used to be that projects that pinned deps were called out as being less secure due to not being able to receive updates without a publish.
different times, different threat model I suppose
This is still the right advice for libraries. For security it doesn’t matter a whole lot anymore as package managers can force the transitive dependencies version, but it allows for much better transitive dependency de duplication.
For non-libraries it doesn’t matter as the exact versions get pinned in the package-lock.
- Python inline dependencies in PEP-0723, which you can pin with a==1.0, but can't be hash-pinned afaik.
- The bin package manager lets you pin binaries, but they aren't hash-pinned either.
- The pants build tool suggests vendoring a get-pants.sh script[0] but it downloads the latest. Even if you pass it a version, it doesn't do any checks on the version number and just installs it to ~/.local/bin
[0]: https://github.com/pantsbuild/setup/blob/gh-pages/get-pants....
Crazy that an "orphan" commit pushed to a FORK(!) could trigger this (in npm clients). IMO GitHub deserves much of the blame here. A malicious fork's commits are reachable via GitHub's shared object storage at a URI indistinguishable from the legit repo. That is absolutely bonkers.
Given the recent lpe vulns docker 100% won’t cut it.
And containers were never meant primarily as a security boundary anyways
This doesn't really feel sustainable, you're rolling the dice every time the dependencies are updated.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48086082
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48086082#48087028
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48101453
2. NPM still not only publishes them, but also keeps distributing them for anything beyond 5 minutes.
Microsoft/GitHub/NPM can only keep repeating "security is our top priority" so many times. But NPM still doesn't detect these simple attacks, and we keep having this every week.
Jesus, that's vindictive.
Again? How have lifecycle scripts not instantly been defaulted off? Yes breaking things is bad, but come on, this keeps happening, the fix is easy, and if an *javascript* build relies of dependendlcy of dependency's pulled build time script, then it's worth paying in braincells or tokens to digure it out and fix the biold process, or lately uncover an exploit chain. This isn't even a compiled language.
I am, however, concerned that this will pwn my workplace. We don't use Tanstack but this seems self-propagating and I doubt all of our dependencies are doing enough to prevent it.
Every package manager that does not analyze and run tests on the packages being uploaded (like Linux distros do) is vulnerable.
pnpm, deno, or bun, none of which will run the malicious "prepare" hook in the first place unless specifically allowed.
(I'm not being stupid, even ten years ago there were arguments on HN about whether you should audit your dependencies)
I landed on the 'yes, you should know what code you are getting involved with' side.
Go Get is closer to always locking dependencies unless you explicitly upgrade them with a go get, so it's much much better in my view.
Yes, you can lock deps in NPM/Cargo/etc. but that's not the default. It is the default in Go.
In Go projects my policy for upgrading dependencies includes running full AI audit of all code changed across all dependencies, comes out to ~$200 in tokens every time but it gives those warm 'not likely to get pwned' vibes. And it comes with a nice report of likely breaking changes etc.
BTW a curated mirror of <whatever ecosystem> packages, where every package is guaranteed to have been analyzed and tested, could be an easy sell now. Also relatively easy to create, with the help of AI. A $200 every time is less pleasant than, say, $100/mo for the entire org.
Docker does something vaguely similar for Docker images, for free though.
How is it not the default in npm?
I don't read it in detail because reading in detail is precisely what I delegate to the harness. The alternative is that I delegate all this trust to package managers and the maintainers which quite clearly is a bad idea.
Whether the $$ pricetag is worth it is.. relative. Also in Go you don't update all that often, really when something either breaks or there is a legitimate security reason to do so, which in deep systems software is quite infrequent.
Funnily enough for frontend NPM code our policy was to never ever upgrade and run with locked dependencies, running few years old JS deps. For internal dashboards it was perfectly fine, never missed a feature and never had a supply chain close call.
Idk about Python, I refuse to use that language for other reasons.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582632
One of the worst ecosystems that has been brought into the software industry and it is almost always via NPM. Not even Cargo (Rust) or go mod (Golang) get as many attacks because at least with the latter, they encourage you to use the standard library.
Both Javascript and Typescript have none and want you to import hundreds of libraries, increasing the risk of a supply chain attack.
At this point, JS and TS are considered harmful.
Other ecosystems package managers are really no different in a lot of ways.
NPM's biggest fault is just it allows post/pre install scripts by default without user intervention.
The difference is that the usual C libraries don’t split the project into small molecules for no good reasons. You have to be as big as GTK to start splitting library in my opinion.
NPM is the windows of package managers right now.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but signed packages are still impractical in NPM which is why supply chain attacks still work by editing existing versions or pushing new point releases without a signature.
Or if you put all of the credentials in GitHub actions which is even more trivially exploitable through the actions marketplace because it is just git with a thin proxy, you have an even wider attack vector