@djessicatony/folk-mcp-canary
This report shows the evidence for @djessicatony/folk-mcp-canary@0.0.1, the only known version.
OpenSSF/OSV Malicious Advisory
imported 4mo ago · by OpenSSF/OSVOpenSSF/OSV advisory MAL-2026-4382 confirms this npm version as malicious.
Advisory
MAL-2026-4382
Source
OpenSSF Malicious Packages via OSV
Summary
Malicious code in @djessicatony/folk-mcp-canary (npm)
Details
index.js contains a beacon-style exfiltration primitive: a fetch() POST at line 60-61 sends process.env data (read at lines 30 and 34) to a hardcoded destination URL (https://REPLACE-WITH-YOUR-BEACON.example, observed at line 24). The file also references 'ping' command invocations (lines 3, 83, 92) consistent with host reconnaissance. The destination URL is a placeholder template string ('REPLACE-WITH-YOUR-BEACON.example'), indicating this is either a published-by-mistake attack template or a proof-of-concept beacon stub — either way the structural shape (env-var read + POST to hardcoded non-publisher endpoint) is an installer-data exfiltration pattern with no legitimate purpose. Package name (under @djessicatony scope, suffix 'canary', version 0.0.1) and the placeholder C2 are consistent with throwaway test-publish of malicious tooling.
References
Source & flagged code
0 flagged · loading sourceNo flagged code excerpts are attached to this scan.
Findings
1 High
HighOsv Malicious Advisory
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to @djessicatony/folk-mcp-canary@0.0.1.
The versions list below shows the verdict for each recorded version.
- Avoid installing @djessicatony/folk-mcp-canary@0.0.1. Remove it from direct dependencies and check your lockfile for transitive copies.
- Choose an independently verified alternative or release. This report does not establish that other versions are safe.
- If this version ran, investigate the affected machine and build environment. Rotate credentials it could access and rebuild from a trusted environment.
Evidence last updated: .
Source advisory published: .
This report uses published external intelligence. The advisory does not provide a separate source-code analysis for each listed version.
Think this verdict is wrong? Dispute it on GitHub or read how reports are produced.