By Null Ventures MCP platform
Menu

supply chain event / NVI-00010891 / Revision 1

Malicious code in css-at-scope-polyfill (npm)

GitHub lists this malware advisory for css-at-scope-polyfill. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.

source listedactiveGHSA-h5r5-rc62-j2gj

This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.

01 / Meaning

Why it matters

Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.

02 / Applicability

The affected context

Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.

css-at-scope-polyfill

source listed
  • = 1.0.0

## Source: amazon-inspector (c4d8d974b7fabf04fa662971cd8041fb76775bf5ed2902cbbffed0f881e2036d) Package is published under a CSS-polyfill name but ships thunderboltRegistry.js, which exports Wix internal registry module names (thunderboltRegistry, siteAssetsRegistry, editorRegistry, corvidRegistry, etc.) so that a build resolving any of those names will load this file. On require(), an IIFE runs child_process.execSync to collect `id`, `whoami`, `uname`, `ifconfig`/`ip addr`, and the contents of /etc/hosts, plus a beacon containing node version, platform, pid, and hostname, and POSTs the output via fetch to the hardcoded HTTP endpoint http://dxpoc.gt.tc/callback.php/bb8968d0f67000433bf7005dd5ad2d1f. The payload clears any require.cache entries referencing 'thunderboltRegistry' and acquires child_process through three fallbacks, including instantiating a new Module via module.constructor to bypass mocks or sandboxes. The declared CSS-polyfill purpose has no relation to this behavior; the shape is a dependency-confusion squat against internal Wix modules. --- Credit: OpenSSF ([source](https://github.com/ossf/malicious-packages/blob/28e8e3

GitHub Advisory Database

03 / Response

What to do next

  1. investigate

    Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.

    Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database

A fixed release is not deployment evidence.

Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.

04 / Limits

What this report cannot establish

  • Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
Read the collection and interpretation limits ↗

05 / Provenance

Sources you can inspect

Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.

  1. GHSA-h5r5-rc62-j2gj ↗

    GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory

    Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.

Public revision history

Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.

  1. Revision 1 ·

    First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.

Read the public revision data ↗

The next step is private

Bring the question into your environment.

The connected workflow is a development preview for inventory, contextual matching, owner decisions and evidence-based verification. No system-specific result is generated by this page.

See the synthetic workflow preview ↗