Zod 4.6.6 compromised by malware?

(github.com)

119 points | by luggage_bazooka 2 hours ago

20 comments

  • jaynetics 1 hour ago
    The compromised code wasn't actually released. This write-up has a lot of information:

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

    • luggage_bazooka 1 hour ago
      Close call, nevertheless, it's silly to keep that commit on the release page.
      • steve_taylor 49 minutes ago
        It's silly to not have rewritten it out of git history.
  • yuvalkarmi 57 minutes 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.

    • Rapzid 43 minutes 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.
      • calyhre 41 minutes 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
        • 0123456789ABCDE 32 minutes ago
          nowhere in gp's comment do they claim it was published
          • sdthjbvuiiijbb 23 minutes ago
            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.

  • jaapz 1 hour 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

    • SlightlyLeftPad 1 hour ago
      Right, 3 seconds in, as soon as I saw “ethereum” in a typescript validator the first thought was the same.
  • luggage_bazooka 2 hours ago
    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

    • throwawayffffas 1 hour ago
      Not looking great is an understatement. You should raise more alarms at github. And people should try to reach the maintainers.
    • niek_pas 1 hour ago
      This might be a hint:

          const R=["https://eth.llamarpc.com","https://ethereum-rpc.publicnode.com","https://cloudflare-eth.com"]
    • thesimon 1 hour ago
      [dead]
  • Jarred 1 hour ago
    I haven’t downloaded the tarball to verify, but it looks like it was reverted prior to the GitHub release:

    https://github.com/colinhacks/zod/commit/10dda3a3a4bc76ed0bf...

  • xx_ns 1 hour 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 1 hour ago
      Great reminder to always disable these scripts unless going through the hassle to verify if it does something absolutely useful.
  • hizlikovboy27 51 minutes 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.
    • ralusek 46 minutes ago
      Never made it to npm you're fine
  • MisterMunchkin 1 hour ago
    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!

  • rarisma 1 hour 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.

    • SlightlyLeftPad 1 hour ago
      Don’t even need to go that far, it refers to ethereum in plain text.
  • eviks 27 minutes ago
    > colinHACKs

    name checks out

  • citbl 1 hour ago
    This is so bad it doesn't even try to hide itself.
  • throwawayy6767 1 hour ago
    What are we looking at exactly? Gia Tan situation? Prompt injection?
  • blueblazin 1 hour 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 58 minutes 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.

    • rfgplk 1 hour ago
      LGTM
  • oraro 1 hour ago
    classic crypto people doing classic crypto things
  • erzhan89 1 hour ago
    malicious remote-code loader
  • SquidJack 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
  • rfgplk 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
    • whstl 1 hour ago
      This problem definitely exists in C++ or Rust.

      The solution in those languages is either to use something like serde validator, garde (for Rust), or go all the way to protobufs... or write your own data validation/parsing by hand.

      Rust and C++ don't even have a Javascript deserializer.

    • oraro 1 hour ago
      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