User avatar
pathetic piss kitten @kitten@elizabeth.cat
1y
Node.js? the malware explicitly checked that it was being run in a browser, and did nothing otherwise
3
1
8
0

User avatar
1y
@kitten If the malware didn't do this check, it would have affected NodeJS massively.
0
0
0
0
1y
@kitten The day I see an 'infosec' post about anything related to the JS ecosystem that actually gets the details right, is the day I will buy a cake and celebrate, and I don't think the bakery in question is getting my business any time soon
0
0
1
0
User avatar
Fiona @airtower@woem.men
1y
@kitten That's kind of the point, isn't it? They were skilled enough to get access and inject malware, and then too clueless to do anything interesting. That's like a burglar breaking into a well-secured home and then stealing spoiled food from the fridge instead of valuables. Good for the victims, but really weird. neocat_laugh_sweat
1
0
1
0
User avatar
pathetic piss kitten @kitten@elizabeth.cat
1y
@airtower but I don't think it's accurate to call it a Node.js supply chain attack
1
0
1
0
User avatar
Fiona @airtower@woem.men
1y
@kitten True, it was an attack on npm (or rather a package maintainer). But Node.js deployment usually use packages from npm, don't they? So they could've been affected if the attacker hadn't limited themselves for whatever odd reason. neocat_think
0
0
2
0