4 ms·
Not at all, it was a regular maintainer account that was hijacked (probably through phishing) and used to push a malicious payload, not a threat actor posing as
by __jonas 6mo ago
Not at all, it was a regular maintainer account that was hijacked (probably through phishing) and used to push a malicious payload, not a threat actor posing as a contributor and adding a backdoor like in the Jia Tan case.
- 1970-01-01 6mo agoI use Jia Tan as a figurehead for malicious maintainers. This clearly was a targeted hack. Does it really matter how long it took to get the job done?
- __jonas 6mo agoI'd argue this has not much in common with Jia Tan apart from both being supply chain attacks, there is no malicious maintainer here, a trusted maintainer had their account taken over. I guess the end result is the same, a malicious package pushed by an account that was thought to be trusted, but I think the Jia Tan case is worth being looked at differently than just simple account takeover.
- 1970-01-01 6mo agoIt's just a longer backstory. All the same in the end. Hackers targeted a popular package. The lead maintainer was compromised. The pattern fits. There will be more of these.