183 points by luggage_bazooka11 days ago | 52 comments
How to play: Some comments in this thread were written by AI. Read through and click flag as AI on any comment you think is fake. When you're done, hit reveal at the bottom to see your score.got it
This is 3 weeks back, folks. It WAS real repository compromise - it made it to Zod's main, but not to npm.
On September 21, someone used Colin's git credentials to push this compromised code into the project, Colin caught it, and reverted it that same day (PR #6620). He subsequently did release 4.6.6 on October 11, but it did NOT contain the infected code.
Btw, Zod wasn't the only package targeted - same attack was attempted against standard-schema and nub. Nub DID make it to npm, but npm's malware scanning blocked it.
Looks like a legit (well, illegitimate) attempted supply-chain attack, but no actual Zod release was compromised.
GitHub releases and npm are separate pipelines, so a tag or release page doesn't prove what got published. When this happens we check with npm view zod@4.6.6 gitHead dist.integrity, or just diff the npm pack tarball against the tag.
Viewed through the lens of Zod's responsibilities and processes I'd say a release was absolutely compromised. They cut and submitted a compromised release to npm; npm just happened to block the publishing.
This is not the case. Zod's release CI was not triggerable via commits/tags by design. It used environment-scoped trusted publishing, which requires a GitHub token with elevated permissions. No releases of Zod or Standard Schema were sent to npm. Their security advisory is very misleading in this regard, which is why I tried to clarify the situation in my comment. [0]
A very pertinent comment from zod's maintainer, from that page:
> EDIT Sept 24 — All of my packages on npm have migrated to use environment-scoped staged publishing triggerable only by workflow_dispatch. This means 2FA is always required, so even if (god forbid) an npm or GitHub token is compromised, it will not be possible for the attacker to publish new versions.
So at least that's good to see. It would be nice for them to actually remove the commit from git history, though...
Might is pretty tame, it is infected - EDIT: title was changed, it said "might be infected".
The malware seems to inject some JS payload to execute when zod is installed, by fetching it from an ethereum smart contract (if I understand it correctly).
Interestingly, they added the `preinstall` key (that is supposed to run the malicious script when installed) under the package.json root, and not under `scripts`, so from what I can tell this wouldn't run on install.
Otherwise, yeah, this seems like a stage-1 loader for fetching and running a payload off the Ethereum mainnet.
Zod maintainer here. As others have noted, this was three weeks ago and no malware was shipped in any release.
Zod's releasing CI was never triggered and it was not vulnerable to this kind of attack. It uses environment-scoped trusted publishing, so a regular push credential is not enough to trigger releasing. There's a security writeup from the NPM team here[0], though it strongly implies that malicious versions of Zod and Standard Schema were caught by their malware scanner. That's not the case. The attacker was not able of triggering Zod's release CI in the first place. I clarified this in my followup comment[1] and asked them to pick more accurate wording to avoid unnecessary FUD like this.
It seems like a git push credential, probably an SSH key, was exfiltrated from my local computer. The attacker used this to try to push malicious versions of Zod, Standard Schema, and nub. The release workflows for Zod and Standard Schema were not vulnerable against this. (Nub was, however, a release run was triggered, and npm's malware detector did flag it and prevent publication.)
It seemed shady to scrub the commits from history, and it still isn't obvious that doing so is better from a security standpoint. But since there are concerns around git bisect, etc, I've done so anyway. v4.6.6 will lose provenance, v4.6.7 is being released.
Since I don't know exactly what else what compromised, I've also done a fresh OS re-install and rotated all creds present on the old machine at the time of the compromise. All my packages have been switched over to staged publishing, which requires 2FA for any release.
Ironically this likely happened due to some work on an OS-level sandbox for Nub's package manager, designed to limit the blast radius of malicious lifecycle scripts. The attack is consistent with an more primitive precursor to the modern Shai-Hulud-style worms. While working on the sandbox, an ersatz agent likely executed a compromised version of some package on npm in a test run. I had safeguards against this (filtering out any OSV-flagged packages, etc) but perhaps there's an undiscovered malicious package. Future work on this feature will happen on an isolated VM.
Before you tell clients anything, did any of your projects install zod from the GitHub repo or a branch ref instead of a pinned npm version? Those could've pulled that commit. Grepping your lockfiles for a git URL seems quicker than assuming the npm version list covers you.
That is 100% a compromised repo. It's a malware downloader.
I feel like they could have done a better job here. Having just a few changes, one of which is a huge blob of blatantly compromising code, is just too obvious.
The URLs are interesting, I don't do anything in this area but I didn't know that you could use the blockchains to hide your command and control URL, in a way that allows you to remotely update the URL whenever you want. It turns out there is a use for blockchain! Making control URLs immune to takedowns!
> Seems like a git push credential of some kind was compromised, not an npm or GitHub token. Still working with the GitHub team to get some better forensics on what/how. The attack consisted of malicious commits and tagged pushes to main.
So it didn't go through review, it was pushed straight to main. It also seems their publishing pipeline was already secured against this sort of thing:
> Zod's release flow was already secured against kind of attack via trusted publishing and a dedicated GitHub environment for secure deployments. Zod's release CI worked as designed and was already secure against this; NPM's malware scanning didn't prevent any malicious here.
Just pasted the code into claude to try and decipher the minified js and looks like it tries to find the server via the blockchain? and then download further stuff from there.
That's the EtherHiding trick. The C2 address sits in a smart contract's storage or a tx's calldata, so the malware just does a read-only RPC call to fetch it. Nothing to take down, and the attacker rotates servers with one cheap transaction. Seen it in a few npm packages lately.
As far as I can tell, how the credentials were obtained is still unanswered. Requiring signed commits on main would have caught this push, since a stolen token alone doesn't give you the signing key. Unless the key lived on the same compromised machine, of course.
Agree with you on it being the fault of the ecosystem. But, Zod is pretty good for parsing (rather than validating). It is IMO what makes TS (or should I say Zodscript) very successful
On September 21, someone used Colin's git credentials to push this compromised code into the project, Colin caught it, and reverted it that same day (PR #6620). He subsequently did release 4.6.6 on October 11, but it did NOT contain the infected code.
Btw, Zod wasn't the only package targeted - same attack was attempted against standard-schema and nub. Nub DID make it to npm, but npm's malware scanning blocked it.
Looks like a legit (well, illegitimate) attempted supply-chain attack, but no actual Zod release was compromised.