←back to thread

1369 points universesquid | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.258s | source
Show context
junon ◴[] No.45169794[source]
Hi, yep I got pwned. Sorry everyone, very embarrassing.

More info:

- https://github.com/chalk/chalk/issues/656

- https://github.com/debug-js/debug/issues/1005#issuecomment-3...

Affected packages (at least the ones I know of):

- ansi-styles@6.2.2

- debug@4.4.2 (appears to have been yanked as of 8 Sep 18:09 CEST)

- chalk@5.6.1

- supports-color@10.2.1

- strip-ansi@7.1.1

- ansi-regex@6.2.1

- wrap-ansi@9.0.1

- color-convert@3.1.1

- color-name@2.0.1

- is-arrayish@0.3.3

- slice-ansi@7.1.1

- color@5.0.1

- color-string@2.1.1

- simple-swizzle@0.2.3

- supports-hyperlinks@4.1.1

- has-ansi@6.0.1

- chalk-template@1.1.1

- backslash@0.2.1

It looks and feels a bit like a targeted attack.

Will try to keep this comment updated as long as I can before the edit expires.

---

Chalk has been published over. The others remain compromised (8 Sep 17:50 CEST).

NPM has yet to get back to me. My NPM account is entirely unreachable; forgot password system does not work. I have no recourse right now but to wait.

Email came from support at npmjs dot help.

Looked legitimate at first glance. Not making excuses, just had a long week and a panicky morning and was just trying to knock something off my list of to-dos. Made the mistake of clicking the link instead of going directly to the site like I normally would (since I was mobile).

Just NPM is affected. Updates to be posted to the `/debug-js` link above.

Again, I'm so sorry.

replies(39): >>45169833 #>>45169877 #>>45169899 #>>45169922 #>>45170115 #>>45170202 #>>45170608 #>>45170631 #>>45170738 #>>45170943 #>>45171084 #>>45171127 #>>45171420 #>>45171444 #>>45171619 #>>45171648 #>>45171666 #>>45171859 #>>45172334 #>>45172346 #>>45172355 #>>45172660 #>>45172846 #>>45174599 #>>45174607 #>>45175160 #>>45175246 #>>45176250 #>>45176355 #>>45176505 #>>45177184 #>>45177316 #>>45178543 #>>45178719 #>>45182153 #>>45183937 #>>45194407 #>>45194912 #>>45229781 #
nodesocket ◴[] No.45169899[source]
What did the phishing email say that made you click and login?
replies(1): >>45170070 #
junon ◴[] No.45170070[source]
That it had been more than 12 months since last updating them. Npm has done outreach before about doing security changes/enhancements in the past so this didn't really catch me.

Screenshot here: https://imgur.com/a/q8s235k

replies(7): >>45170187 #>>45170240 #>>45170308 #>>45170321 #>>45170333 #>>45170335 #>>45171291 #
nodesocket ◴[] No.45170240[source]
Yikes, looks legit. Curious what are the destination addresses? Would like to monitor them to see how much coin they are stealing.
replies(3): >>45170331 #>>45170449 #>>45170952 #
hunter2_ ◴[] No.45170331[source]
In terms of presentation, yes. In terms of substance, short deadlines are often what separate phishing from legitimate requests.
replies(1): >>45172370 #
mrguyorama ◴[] No.45172370[source]
There is NO reliable indicators, because every single one of these "Legit requests don't ..." recommendations has been done by a local bank trying to get their customers to do something.

My local credit union sent me a "please change your password" email from a completely unassociated email address with a link to the change password portal. I emailed them saying "Hey it looks like someone is phishing" and they said, "nope, we really, intentionally, did this"

Companies intentionally withhold warning emails as late as possible to cause more people to incur late fees. So everyone is used to "shit, gotta do this now or get screwed"

You can't hope to have good security when everyone's money is controlled by organizations that actively train people to have bad OPSEC or risk missing rent.

replies(2): >>45172585 #>>45175013 #
1. hunter2_ ◴[] No.45172585[source]
I agree: any of the potential indicators of phishing (whether it's poor presentation, incorrect grammar, tight deadlines, unusual "from" addresses, unusual domains in links, etc.) can easily have false positives which unfortunately dull people's senses. That doesn't mean they can't continue to be promulgated as indicators of possible (not definite) phishing, though.

I used the word "often" rather than "always" for this reason.