8 ms·

They just added more details: > Indicators of compromise (IOCs) > Our investigation has revealed that the incident originated from a third-party AI tool whose

by nettlin 6mo ago

They just added more details: > Indicators of compromise (IOCs) > Our investigation has revealed that the incident originated from a third-party AI tool whose Google Workspace OAuth app was the subject of a broader compromise, potentially affecting hundreds of its users across many organizations. > We are publishing the following IOC to support the wider community in the investigation and vetting of potential malicious activity in their environments. We recommend that Google Workspace Administrators and Google Account owners check for usage of this app immediately. > OAuth App: 110671459871-30f1spbu0hptbs60cb4vsmv79i7bbvqj.apps.googleusercontent.com https://vercel.com/kb/bulletin/vercel-april-2026-security-incident#indicators-of-compromise-iocs https://vercel.com/kb/bulletin/vercel-april-2026-security-in...

loloquwowndueo 6mo ago
The actual app name would be good to have. Understandable they don’t want to throw them under the bus but it’s just delaying taking action by not revealing what app/service this was.
- progbits 6mo ago
  I was trying to look it up (basically https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/oauth2/javascript-implicit-flow#redirecting https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/oauth2/java... -- the consent screen shows the app name) but it now says "Error 401: invalid_client; The OAuth client was not found." so it was probably deleted by the oauth client owner.
  - tom1337 6mo ago
    It indeed was deleted as this URL shows: https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth?client_id=110671459871-30f1spbu0hptbs60cb4vsmv79i7bbvqj.apps.googleusercontent.com&redirect_uri=urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob&response_type=code&scope=openid%20email%20profile https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth?client_id=11067...
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
  - loloquwowndueo 6mo ago
    Makes it even more relevant to have the actual app or vendor name - who’s to say they just removed it to save face and won’t add it later?
- pottertheotter 6mo ago
  It’s context.ai https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169 https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169
  - tom1337 5mo ago
    [dead]
newdee 6mo ago
It looks like the app has already been deleted
slopinthebag 6mo ago
Idk exactly how to articulate my thoughts here, perhaps someone can chime in and help. This feels like a natural consequence of the direction web development has been going for the last decade, where it's normalised to wire up many third party solutions together rather than building from more stable foundations. So many moving parts, so many potential points of failure, and as this incident has shown, you are only as secure as your weakest link. Putting your business in the hands of a third party AI tool (which is surely vibe-coded) carries risks. Is this the direction we want to continue in? Is it really necessary? How much more complex do things need to be before we course-correct?
- lijok 6mo ago
  This isn't a web development concept. It's the unix philosophy of "write programs that do one thing and do it well" and interconnect them, being taken to the extremes that were never intended. We need a different hosting model.
  - slopinthebag 6mo ago
    In my mind the unix philosophy leads to running your cloud on your own hardware or VPS's, not this.
    - bdangubic 6mo ago
      exactly this, write - not use some sh*t written by some dude from Akron OH 2 years ago”
      - arcfour 6mo ago
        That's why I wrote my own compiler and coreutils. Can't trust some shit written by GNU developers 30 years ago. And my own kernel. Can't trust some shit written by a Finnish dude 30 years ago. And my own UEFI firmware. Definitely can't trust some shit written by my hardware vendor ever.
        6mo ago
cebert 6mo ago
I don’t understand why they can’t just directly name the responsible app as it will come out eventually.
- SaltyBackendGuy 6mo ago
  Maybe legal red tape?
  - brookst 6mo ago
    Yes. The oauth ID is indisputable. It it seems to be context.ai. But suppose it was a fake context.ai that the employee was tricked into using. Or… or… Better to report 100% known things quickly. People can figure it out with near zero effort, and it reduces one tiny bit of potential liability in the ops shitstorm they’re going through.
- mcdow 6mo ago
  They might be buying time to sell the relevant stock
- pottertheotter 6mo ago
  It’s context.ai https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169 https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - sroussey 6mo ago
    Which itself was the subject of a broader compromise as far as i can tell
hansmayer 6mo ago
[flagged]
- junon 6mo ago
  This was a Google oauth app and it was phished. So... No.
  - hansmayer 5mo ago
    "The incident originated with a compromise of Context.ai, a third-party AI tool used by a Vercel employee" So - yes, actually.
ryanscio 6mo ago
https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169 https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169 > A Vercel employee got compromised via the breach of an AI platform customer called http://Context.ai http://Context.ai that he was using. > Through a series of maneuvers that escalated from our colleague’s compromised Vercel Google Workspace account, the attacker got further access to Vercel environments. > We do have a capability however to designate environment variables as “non-sensitive”. Unfortunately, the attacker got further access through their enumeration. > We believe the attacking group to be highly sophisticated and, I strongly suspect, significantly accelerated by AI. They moved with surprising velocity and in-depth understanding of Vercel. Still no email blast from Vercel alerting users, which is concerning.
- cowsup 6mo ago
  > Still no email blast from Vercel alerting users, which is concerning. On the one hand, I get that it's a Sunday, and the CEO can't just write a mass email without approval from legal or other comms teams. But on the other hand... It's Sunday. Unless you're tuned-in to social media over the weekend, your main provider could be undergoing a meltdown while you are completely unaware. Many higher-up folks check company email over the weekend, but if they're traveling or relaxing, social media might be the furthest thing from their mind. It really bites that this is the only way to get critical information.
  - loloquwowndueo 6mo ago
    > the CEO can't just write a mass email without approval from legal or other comms teams. They can be brought in to do their job on a Sunday for an event of this relevance. They can always take next Friday off or something.
  - eclipticplane 6mo ago
    Has anyone actually gotten an email from Vercel confirming their secrets were accessed? Right now we're all operating under the hope (?) that since we haven't (yet?) gotten an email, we're not completely hosed.

by nettlin 6mo ago

loloquwowndueo 6mo ago

The actual app name would be good to have. Understandable they don’t want to throw them under the bus but it’s just delaying taking action by not revealing what app/service this was.

progbits 6mo ago
I was trying to look it up (basically https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/oauth2/javascript-implicit-flow#redirecting https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/oauth2/java... -- the consent screen shows the app name) but it now says "Error 401: invalid_client; The OAuth client was not found." so it was probably deleted by the oauth client owner.
- tom1337 6mo ago
  It indeed was deleted as this URL shows: https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth?client_id=110671459871-30f1spbu0hptbs60cb4vsmv79i7bbvqj.apps.googleusercontent.com&redirect_uri=urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob&response_type=code&scope=openid%20email%20profile https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth?client_id=11067...
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- loloquwowndueo 6mo ago
  Makes it even more relevant to have the actual app or vendor name - who’s to say they just removed it to save face and won’t add it later?
pottertheotter 6mo ago
It’s context.ai https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169 https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169
- tom1337 5mo ago
  [dead]

newdee 6mo ago

It looks like the app has already been deleted

slopinthebag 6mo ago

Idk exactly how to articulate my thoughts here, perhaps someone can chime in and help. This feels like a natural consequence of the direction web development has been going for the last decade, where it's normalised to wire up many third party solutions together rather than building from more stable foundations. So many moving parts, so many potential points of failure, and as this incident has shown, you are only as secure as your weakest link. Putting your business in the hands of a third party AI tool (which is surely vibe-coded) carries risks. Is this the direction we want to continue in? Is it really necessary? How much more complex do things need to be before we course-correct?

lijok 6mo ago
This isn't a web development concept. It's the unix philosophy of "write programs that do one thing and do it well" and interconnect them, being taken to the extremes that were never intended. We need a different hosting model.
- slopinthebag 6mo ago
  In my mind the unix philosophy leads to running your cloud on your own hardware or VPS's, not this.
  - bdangubic 6mo ago
    exactly this, write - not use some sh*t written by some dude from Akron OH 2 years ago”
    - arcfour 6mo ago
      That's why I wrote my own compiler and coreutils. Can't trust some shit written by GNU developers 30 years ago. And my own kernel. Can't trust some shit written by a Finnish dude 30 years ago. And my own UEFI firmware. Definitely can't trust some shit written by my hardware vendor ever.
      - 6mo ago

cebert 6mo ago

I don’t understand why they can’t just directly name the responsible app as it will come out eventually.

SaltyBackendGuy 6mo ago
Maybe legal red tape?
- brookst 6mo ago
  Yes. The oauth ID is indisputable. It it seems to be context.ai. But suppose it was a fake context.ai that the employee was tricked into using. Or… or… Better to report 100% known things quickly. People can figure it out with near zero effort, and it reduces one tiny bit of potential liability in the ops shitstorm they’re going through.
mcdow 6mo ago
They might be buying time to sell the relevant stock
pottertheotter 6mo ago
It’s context.ai https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169 https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- sroussey 6mo ago
  Which itself was the subject of a broader compromise as far as i can tell

hansmayer 6mo ago

[flagged]

junon 6mo ago
This was a Google oauth app and it was phished. So... No.
- hansmayer 5mo ago
  "The incident originated with a compromise of Context.ai, a third-party AI tool used by a Vercel employee" So - yes, actually.

ryanscio 6mo ago

https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169 https://x.com/rauchg/status/2045995362499076169 > A Vercel employee got compromised via the breach of an AI platform customer called http://Context.ai http://Context.ai that he was using. > Through a series of maneuvers that escalated from our colleague’s compromised Vercel Google Workspace account, the attacker got further access to Vercel environments. > We do have a capability however to designate environment variables as “non-sensitive”. Unfortunately, the attacker got further access through their enumeration. > We believe the attacking group to be highly sophisticated and, I strongly suspect, significantly accelerated by AI. They moved with surprising velocity and in-depth understanding of Vercel. Still no email blast from Vercel alerting users, which is concerning.

cowsup 6mo ago
> Still no email blast from Vercel alerting users, which is concerning. On the one hand, I get that it's a Sunday, and the CEO can't just write a mass email without approval from legal or other comms teams. But on the other hand... It's Sunday. Unless you're tuned-in to social media over the weekend, your main provider could be undergoing a meltdown while you are completely unaware. Many higher-up folks check company email over the weekend, but if they're traveling or relaxing, social media might be the furthest thing from their mind. It really bites that this is the only way to get critical information.
- loloquwowndueo 6mo ago
  > the CEO can't just write a mass email without approval from legal or other comms teams. They can be brought in to do their job on a Sunday for an event of this relevance. They can always take next Friday off or something.
- eclipticplane 6mo ago
  Has anyone actually gotten an email from Vercel confirming their secrets were accessed? Right now we're all operating under the hope (?) that since we haven't (yet?) gotten an email, we're not completely hosed.