Zod 4.6.6 compromised by malware?

180 pointsposted a day ago
by luggage_bazooka

50 Comments

yuvalkarmi

a day ago

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.

pier25

20 hours ago

> it made it to Zod's main, but not to npm

Thank god. Zod reached like 350M weekly downloads recently.

Rapzid

a day ago

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.

colinmcd

a day ago

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]

[0] https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/208477#discuss...

calyhre

a day ago

No it was never published. Only `nubjs/nub` was. You can read more on the write-up -> https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/208477

nowhere in gp's comment do they claim it was published

The comment you replied to meant never submitted for publishing.

>They cut and submitted a compromised release to npm; npm just happened to block the publishing.

The point is that this is incorrect. A compromised release was not submitted to npm. It didn't make it beyond the git repo.

calyhre

a day ago

It claims a release was sent to NPM, and this is not true. The maintainer of Zod made sure even this kind of attack could not proceed with a publication. The comment I answered to is dismissing these efforts put in place by Colin.

jaynetics

a day ago

The compromised code wasn't actually released. This write-up has a lot of information:

https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/208477

arcfour

a day ago

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...

Close call, nevertheless, it's silly to keep that commit on the release page.

steve_taylor

a day ago

It's silly to not have rewritten it out of git history.

Yeah. A git bisect can still hit it.

It definitely doesn't inspire confidence in the project taking security seriously.

(Also the "write-up" is almost surely a "Claude-up", though it appears generated by someone external to the project).

arcfour

a day ago

He is (evidently) the product manager of NPM, so while external, I guess he should have a good idea of what's going on. Claude generated, yes, appears so, though it appears to be factually correct and fairly brief, from my quick perusal.

andy_ppp

a day ago

They still have the opportunity to remove it I guess?

The most recent version 4.6.6 has a very interesting commit (d821685) "Fix bugs and improve performance", that contain the following changes https://github.com/colinhacks/zod/commit/d821685ea6732436fcd...

I didn't study what packages/mini/meta.test.mjs is doing in particular but it's not looking great

niek_pas

a day ago

This might be a hint:

    const R=["https://eth.llamarpc.com","https://ethereum-rpc.publicnode.com","https://cloudflare-eth.com"]

matltc

32 minutes ago

That's where the runtime type validation happens

Not looking great is an understatement. You should raise more alarms at github. And people should try to reach the maintainers.

jaapz

a day ago

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).

Don't forget to flag the version on npm.

EDIT: looks like the update never got on NPM: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50053253

Right, 3 seconds in, as soon as I saw “ethereum” in a typescript validator the first thought was the same.

xx_ns

a day ago

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.

nicce

a day ago

Great reminder to always disable these scripts unless going through the hassle to verify if it does something absolutely useful.

chrisweekly

a day ago

Use pnpm!

madeofpalk

a day ago

Every node package manager disables preinstall scripts by default now!

nicce

a day ago

You need to explicitly update npm to 12 before this is true in Node.

ameliaquining

a day ago

That's no longer necessary for security; npm doesn't run install scripts by default anymore.

nicce

a day ago

Default npm version is still 11 on every Node install. Almost there, but not yet!

colinmcd

a day ago

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.

[0] https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/208477

[1] https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/208477#discuss...

citbl

a day ago

This is so bad it doesn't even try to hide itself.

What are we looking at exactly? Gia Tan situation? Prompt injection?

ameliaquining

a day ago

Nothing so exotic; a GitHub credential just got compromised. Happens all the time.

hizlikovboy27

a day ago

I have many projects using this library. do u think the situtation is urgent, a code red? I will need to talk to clients accordingly.

arcfour

a day ago

This happened 3 weeks ago and no release was published on NPM containing the code.

ralusek

a day ago

Never made it to npm you're fine

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!

erzhan89

a day ago

malicious remote-code loader

blueblazin

a day ago

How is this even possible? The change is small and literally has an ethereum URL in the code changes. How did it go through?

ozyschmozy

a day ago

From the repo owner:

> 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.

oraro

a day ago

classic crypto people doing classic crypto things

rarisma

a day ago

Yep, def looks bad.

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.

Don’t even need to go that far, it refers to ethereum in plain text.