Package hijacking, also known as dependency confusion or namespace squatting, is a software supply chain attack where an attacker publishes a malicious package to a public registry with a name identical to a private, internal dependency used by a target organization. When a build system, such as npm, pip, or cargo, fetches dependencies, it may be tricked into downloading and executing the higher-versioned malicious public package instead of the intended private one. In blockchain development, this can compromise smart contract deployment scripts, developer tools, or node client software, leading to stolen funds or network disruption.
LABS
Glossary
Package Hijacking
Package hijacking is a software supply chain attack where an attacker compromises or impersonates a legitimate dependency package to inject malicious code into downstream applications.
Chainscore © 2026
definition
BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY
What is Package Hijacking?
A supply chain attack targeting software dependencies to inject malicious code into blockchain projects.
The attack exploits the default behavior of package managers to prioritize public repositories over private ones when resolving package names. An attacker first identifies a project's private dependency (e.g., @acme-internal/validator), then publishes a malicious package with the same name to a public registry like npmjs.com. If the project's configuration does not explicitly scope the dependency source, the build pipeline may pull the attacker's package, which often contains a higher version number to increase its priority. The malicious code can then exfiltrate sensitive data like private keys, modify build artifacts, or establish a persistent backdoor.
For blockchain ecosystems, the consequences are severe. A hijacked package in a Truffle or Hardhat script could compromise the private keys used to deploy smart contracts. A malicious dependency in a wallet library or node client could lead to widespread theft or consensus failures. Defenses include using scoped packages (e.g., @organization/package), configuring package managers to always prioritize private registries, employing lockfiles to pin dependency versions and hashes, and implementing automated tooling to monitor for suspicious package publications that mimic internal names.
how-it-works
SECURITY THREAT
How Package Hijacking Works
Package hijacking is a supply chain attack where a malicious actor gains control of a legitimate software package's distribution channel to inject malware or backdoors.
Package hijacking, also known as a dependency confusion or namespace squatting attack, exploits the trust developers place in public software repositories. An attacker publishes a malicious package with a higher version number or identical name to a legitimate internal or private dependency. When a build system like npm, PyPI, or Maven fetches dependencies, it may be tricked into downloading the malicious public package instead of the intended private one due to repository precedence rules. This initial compromise establishes a foothold within the development or deployment pipeline.
The attack vector typically begins with reconnaissance, where an attacker scans for internal package names used by a target organization. They then register those names on public repositories, often adding a version number higher than any existing internal version. Sophisticated attacks may use typosquatting (similar names) or employ automation to publish thousands of malicious packages. The malicious payload is often obfuscated and may include a post-install script that executes immediately upon download, exfiltrating environment variables, source code, or credentials to an attacker-controlled server.
Once executed, the malicious code can have devastating consequences. It may deploy cryptominers, create persistent backdoors, or initiate lateral movement within a network. In a famous 2021 incident, a researcher demonstrated the technique against major tech firms, highlighting systemic vulnerabilities. Defenses include configuring package managers to prioritize private repositories, using scoped packages (e.g., @company/package), implementing strict version pinning, and employing automated tools to scan for dependency confusion and typosquatting in your software bill of materials (SBOM).
key-features
ATTACK VECTORS
Key Characteristics of Package Hijacking
Package hijacking, also known as dependency confusion or namespace squatting, is a software supply chain attack where an attacker publishes a malicious package to a public repository with a name identical to a private/internal dependency used by a target organization.
01
Dependency Confusion
This is the core mechanism. Attackers exploit the default behavior of package managers (like npm, PyPI, RubyGems) which check public repositories before private ones. By publishing a malicious package with a higher version number than the legitimate internal one, they trick the build system into downloading and executing their code.
- Key Exploit: Relies on the order of package source resolution.
- Example: An internal package
@acme-core/utils(v1.2.0) is targeted by a public@acme-core/utils(v99.0.0).
02
Typosquatting & Brandjacking
A related technique where attackers register packages with names similar to popular legitimate ones, hoping developers will mistype the name during installation.
- Method: Uses common misspellings (
requrestvsrequest), homoglyphs, or adding/removing hyphens. - Goal: Casts a wide net to infect any developer who makes a simple error, not just those with private dependencies.
03
Malicious Payloads
The hijacked package contains code designed to exfiltrate data, establish persistence, or compromise the build environment.
- Common Payloads:
- Credentials Theft: Steals API keys, npm tokens, or SSH keys from the CI/CD environment.
- Backdoors: Opens reverse shells or installs remote access tools.
- Data Exfiltration: Sends environment variables and source code to an attacker-controlled server.
04
Automated Discovery
Attackers use automated tools to scan for potential targets by identifying package names referenced in public artifacts like open-source code, leaked build scripts, or exposed CI/CD configuration files (e.g., .gitlab-ci.yml, Jenkinsfile).
- Source of Intel: Public GitHub repositories are a primary source for finding internal package names.
- Scale: Allows attackers to target hundreds or thousands of organizations simultaneously.
05
Prevention & Mitigation
Organizations defend against this by configuring their development toolchain to prioritize internal sources.
- Key Defenses:
- Scoped Registries: Use organization-scoped packages (e.g.,
@company-name/). - Source Priority: Configure package managers to always check the private registry first.
- Download Mirrors: Use a proxy or mirror that only serves vetted public packages.
- Dependency Pinning: Use exact version numbers or lockfiles.
- Scoped Registries: Use organization-scoped packages (e.g.,
06
Real-World Impact
This is not a theoretical threat. Major incidents have demonstrated its severe consequences.
- Notable Example: In 2021, security researcher Alex Birsan demonstrated the attack against over 35 companies, including Apple, Microsoft, and Tesla, by publishing benign test packages that reported back installation data, proving widespread vulnerability.
- Consequences: Can lead to massive intellectual property theft, compromised production systems, and erosion of trust in the software supply chain.
common-techniques
PACKAGE HIJACKING
Common Hijacking Techniques
Package hijacking refers to the malicious takeover of legitimate software packages or dependencies in public registries to inject malicious code into downstream applications. This glossary details the primary attack vectors.
01
Typosquatting
Attackers publish malicious packages with names similar to popular legitimate ones, relying on developer typos or misspellings during installation. This is a form of brand impersonation.
- Example: Publishing
lodash(malicious) instead oflodash(legitimate). - Mechanism: Automated tools scan for high-download packages and register common misspellings.
- Impact: Code is unintentionally imported, leading to credential theft, data exfiltration, or backdoor installation.
02
Dependency Confusion / Namespace Squatting
This attack exploits the precedence of public package registries over private ones. An attacker publishes a package with a higher version number to a public registry using the same name as a company's internal, private dependency.
- Mechanism: Build systems (e.g., npm, PyPI) often check public sources first. The malicious public package with a higher version is fetched instead of the internal one.
- Prerequisite: Requires the organization to use unscoped, non-unique names for private dependencies.
- Defense: Use scoped packages (
@company/package-name) or configure package managers to prioritize private registries.
03
Account Takeover (ATO)
The compromise of a legitimate maintainer's account on a package registry (e.g., npm, PyPI) to gain publishing rights to their packages.
- Initial Access: Often via phishing, credential stuffing, or exploiting weak 2FA/MFA setups on the maintainer's email or registry account.
- Action: The attacker pushes a malicious update, often as a patch or minor version, to avoid suspicion.
- Notable Incident: The
coaandrcnpm packages were compromised via maintainer account takeovers, affecting thousands of projects.
04
Malicious Maintainer / Protestware
A legitimate package maintainer intentionally introduces malicious code, often for political protest, sabotage, or to highlight security issues in the ecosystem.
- Characteristics: The package owner is the original attacker, making detection by registry authorities more complex.
- Examples: The
node-ipcpackage added code that deleted files on Russian and Belarusian systems. Thecolorsandfakerpackages introduced infinite loops. - Impact: Highlights the risk of supply chain trust and the potential for single points of failure in open-source maintenance.
05
Starjacking / Metadata Poisoning
Manipulating a package's metadata or repository to appear more popular and trustworthy, thereby increasing its chances of being adopted.
- Tactics: Inflating GitHub star counts using bots, copying legitimate package descriptions, READMEs, and issue history.
- Goal: To improve search ranking within package registries and deceive automated security scanners that use popularity as a trust signal.
- Defense: Scrutinize package metadata, commit history, and contributor activity rather than relying solely on star counts or download stats.
06
Chainjacking (via Compromised Tooling)
Compromising the continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipelines, build scripts, or developer tools used to publish packages.
- Attack Vector: Gaining access to a project's GitHub Actions, Travis CI, or other automation that has publishing credentials.
- Mechanism: The attacker injects malicious code into the build process, which is then automatically signed and released as an "official" update.
- Stealth: The malicious commit originates from a trusted automation source, bypassing manual review. Defenses include using hardware security keys and strict CI/CD permissions.
real-world-examples
PACKAGE HIJACKING
Real-World Examples & Incidents
These incidents demonstrate the tangible impact of package hijacking, from direct theft to widespread supply chain attacks.
01
The CoffeMiner Typosquat
In 2018, a malicious actor published a package called coffeeminer on npm, a clear typosquat of the popular coffee-script compiler. The package contained a cryptojacking script that would secretly mine Monero on infected systems. This incident highlighted how easily developers could be tricked by a single typo during installation, turning their machines into resources for attackers.
02
The Event-Stream Backdoor
A maintainer of the popular event-stream npm package (with millions of weekly downloads) transferred ownership to an unknown user. The new maintainer added a dependency on a package called flatmap-stream, which contained a sophisticated backdoor. This malicious code specifically targeted the Copay bitcoin wallet application, attempting to steal cryptocurrency. It's a classic case of a supply chain attack via a trusted but compromised dependency.
03
The ua-parser-js Credential Theft
In October 2021, the widely used ua-parser-js library (parsing user-agent strings) was hijacked. Malicious versions were published that contained password-stealing and cryptomining malware. The attack vector was a compromised maintainer account. This incident forced immediate emergency patches across thousands of downstream projects and services, showcasing the massive blast radius of a single hijacked package.
04
PyPI's Colorama & JeIlyfish Attacks
The Python Package Index (PyPI) has been a frequent target. In one campaign, attackers uploaded malicious packages with names like jeIlyfish (with a capital 'i') and colourama, impersonating the legitimate jellyfish and colorama libraries. These packages executed information-stealing code upon installation, harvesting credentials and environment variables from developers' systems.
05
The RubyGems Strong Password Backdoor
In 2019, a hijacked version of the strong_password gem was uploaded to RubyGems. The malicious code included a backdoor that allowed remote execution of arbitrary commands on any server running the compromised gem. This gave attackers potential control over web applications, demonstrating that hijacking isn't just about stealing from developers but can lead to full server compromise.
06
The Dependency Confusion Attack Pattern
While not a single incident, dependency confusion is a systematic hijacking technique. Attackers publish malicious packages with names identical to an organization's private internal dependencies to public registries like npm or PyPI. Build systems that check public registries first may inadvertently pull and execute the malicious public version instead of the safe private one, a method famously demonstrated by security researcher Alex Birsan.
security-considerations
PACKAGE HIJACKING
Security Risks & Impact
Package hijacking, also known as dependency confusion or namespace squatting, is a software supply chain attack where a malicious actor publishes a malicious package to a public registry with the same name as a legitimate internal or private dependency.
01
The Attack Vector
This attack exploits the default resolution order of package managers like npm, PyPI, or RubyGems. When a build system (e.g., CI/CD pipeline) attempts to install a dependency, it often checks public registries before internal ones. An attacker publishes a higher-versioned, malicious package with the same name, tricking the system into installing it instead of the legitimate internal code. This can lead to remote code execution, data exfiltration, or backdoor installation.
02
Real-World Incidents
Notable incidents demonstrate the severe impact:
- PyPI (2023): Attackers used automated tools to upload thousands of malicious packages, some mimicking popular private libraries from companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Tesla.
- npm (2021): The 'ua-parser-js' library was compromised when the maintainer's account was hijacked, leading to malicious versions being published that stole environment variables and cryptocurrency wallet data.
- CodeCov (2021): A compromised bash uploader script, distributed via a tampered Docker image, exfiltrated credentials and tokens from thousands of customer CI/CD environments.
03
Common Payloads & Impact
Once installed, malicious packages execute payloads designed for maximum impact:
- Credential Theft: Harvesting environment variables, API keys, SSH keys, and cloud service credentials from the build or runtime environment.
- Backdoor Installation: Establishing persistent remote access for later exploitation.
- Cryptocurrency Mining: Deploying coin miner software to hijack computational resources.
- Data Exfiltration: Sending sensitive source code, configuration files, or proprietary data to attacker-controlled servers.
- Lateral Movement: Using the compromised build system as a foothold to attack other internal systems.
04
Mitigation Strategies
Organizations can defend against package hijacking through configuration and tooling:
- Use Scoped Packages/Namespaces: Prefix internal packages with an organization-specific scope (e.g.,
@company/package). - Configure Registry Priority: Force package managers to prioritize internal registries over public ones. Use
.npmrc,pip.conf, or equivalent configuration files. - Implement Dependency Auditing: Use tools like OWASP Dependency-Check, Snyk, or GitHub Dependabot to scan for known vulnerabilities and suspicious packages.
- Enforce 2FA for Registry Accounts: Require two-factor authentication for all developer accounts with publish rights.
- Adopt a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM): Maintain an inventory of all dependencies to improve visibility and traceability.
05
Related Concepts
Package hijacking is one facet of broader software supply chain security threats:
- Typosquatting: Publishing malicious packages with names similar to popular ones (e.g.,
requrestvsrequest). - Brandjacking: Impersonating the namespace or package names of well-known organizations.
- Malicious Maintainer: A legitimate package owner intentionally introduces malicious code.
- Chain of Trust: The concept of verifying the integrity and origin of all software artifacts, often using digital signatures (e.g., Sigstore, GPG).
ATTACK VECTORS
Package Hijacking vs. Related Attacks
A comparison of supply chain attacks targeting software dependencies, highlighting their primary mechanisms and objectives.
| Attack Vector | Package Hijacking | Typosquatting | Dependency Confusion | Malicious Contributor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Target | Existing, legitimate package | Package name similar to popular one | Internal/private package name | Open-source project repository |
Attack Method | Compromise maintainer account or registry | Publish malicious package with misspelled name | Publish malicious public package with higher version | Gain commit privileges and insert backdoor |
Initial Access | Credential theft, takeover of abandoned package | Public registry publication | Public registry publication | Project contribution and trust earned |
Typical Payload | Malicious code in update | Malware, data stealers, cryptominers | Malware, credential harvesters | Stealthy backdoor or logic bomb |
Detection Difficulty | High (appears as legitimate update) | Medium (manual review of name catches it) | Medium-High (requires internal repo configuration) | Very High (code appears legitimate) |
Preventive Control | Strong 2FA for maintainers, monitor for account changes | Automated typo detection, strict internal allowlists | Configure private registries to prioritize internal sources | Require multi-maintainer review, audit third-party code |
mitigation-strategies
PACKAGE HIJACKING
Prevention & Mitigation Strategies
Package hijacking is a supply chain attack where a malicious actor gains control of a legitimate software package or its distribution channel. These strategies focus on securing the development lifecycle and user verification.
01
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) & Strong Credentials
Enforcing MFA on all developer accounts and package registry logins is the primary defense against account takeover, the most common vector for hijacking. This includes:
- Using hardware security keys or authenticator apps.
- Implementing strong, unique passwords with a password manager.
- Regularly auditing and removing unused access tokens and API keys from CI/CD systems.
02
Package Signing & Integrity Verification
Cryptographic signing allows developers to sign packages with a private key, enabling users to verify the publisher's identity and that the code hasn't been tampered with since release.
- Examples: GPG signatures, Sigstore's cosign.
- Users and automated systems should configure package managers (like npm, pip) to verify signatures or use checksums from official sources before installation.
03
Registry Security & Namespace Locking
Package registries (npm, PyPI) offer features to prevent unauthorized publishes.
- Two-factor authentication for publishing.
- Namespace locking: Reserving package names for verified organizations to prevent typosquatting.
- Security policies that require maintainer approval for new collaborator additions or automated security alerts for suspicious activity.
04
Automated Monitoring & Threat Detection
Proactive tools scan for hijacking indicators and malicious code injection.
- Dependency scanning: Tools like Snyk, GitHub Dependabot detect known vulnerabilities and suspicious package behavior.
- Reputation services: Services that track package metadata changes, new maintainers, and version history anomalies.
- Canary packages: Deploying decoy packages to detect takeover attempts.
05
Developer Education & Secure Practices
Human factors are critical. Teams must adopt secure development lifecycle (SDL) practices:
- Never use plain-text secrets in code or CI/CD configurations.
- Use automated tools for secret scanning.
- Verify the source of all dependencies, preferring those from official, well-maintained organizations.
- Establish incident response plans for suspected compromises.
06
Immutable Releases & Pinning Versions
To mitigate the impact of a future hijack, treat published packages as immutable and control updates.
- Version pinning: Use exact version numbers or hash-pinning (e.g., npm's
package-lock.json, pip'shash-checking mode) to prevent automatic installation of malicious updates. - Immutable registries: Some registries prevent deletion or modification of published versions, forcing attackers to create a new version which can be more easily detected.
PACKAGE HIJACKING
Frequently Asked Questions
Package hijacking is a supply chain attack targeting software dependencies. These questions address its mechanisms, risks, and prevention in blockchain and Web3 development.
Package hijacking is a software supply chain attack where a malicious actor gains control of a legitimate software library or dependency to inject malicious code. It works through several primary vectors: typosquatting (creating a package with a name similar to a popular one), dependency confusion (publishing a malicious package with a higher version number to a public registry than a private one), or directly compromising a maintainer's account. Once a developer or automated build system installs the compromised package, the embedded malicious code executes, potentially leading to data theft, backdoor installation, or cryptocurrency wallet drain. In Web3, this often targets libraries for wallet connections, smart contract utilities, or SDKs.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall