registry / @mnemonik/cli / 7.157.4
@mnemonik/cli@7.157.4
⚠ Under reviewMnemonik installer and local project helper
AI Security Review
scanned 9d ago · by lpm-firewall-aiThe manifest has no lifecycle scripts, and the flagged eval sites inspected are generated embedded assembly support rather than demonstrated remote-code execution. The signer helper's recipient and consent controls remain unresolved, so the available source does not support a clean or malicious verdict.
Static reason
One or more suspicious static signals were detected.
Trigger
The signer helper is called; the inspected executable bootstraps when run with arguments.
Impact
If callers can select an unrestricted destination without consent, project context and the token could be exposed; the inspected excerpt does not establish that condition.
Mechanism
The helper POSTs JSON and a bearer token to the server passed to it. The inspected code does not identify the endpoint selection or guard for every caller.
AI rationale
The manifest has no lifecycle scripts, and the flagged eval sites inspected are generated embedded assembly support rather than demonstrated remote-code execution. The signer helper's recipient and consent controls remain unresolved, so the available source does not support a clean or malicious verdict.
Evidence
dist/runtime/signers.js
Decision evidence
public snapshotAI called this Manual Review at 73.0% confidence as Unknown with medium false-positive risk.
AI review observations
- package.json defines the CLI entrypoint and has no lifecycle scripts.
- The executable calls bootstrap when invoked with arguments.
- The signer code POSTs JSON with a bearer token to a supplied server; it builds project identity and repository context for that request.
- Scanner and installer files contain generated WebAssembly support code that compiles a function body assembled for an embedded assembly module.
Evidence against
- The inspected sources do not establish who supplies the signer server and token, whether the destination is restricted, or whether consent guards every caller.
- The eval occurrences inspected are within embedded assembly support code; they do not show remote response content reaching the evaluation sink.
Behavioral surface
ChildProcessCryptoDynamicRequireEnvironmentVarsEvalFilesystemNetwork
HighEntropyStrings
Source & flagged code
8 flaggeddist/diagnostics.jsView file
923import { createHash, createPublicKey, randomUUID, timingSafeEqual, verify as verifySignature } from "node:crypto";
L924: import { execFile, execFileSync } from "node:child_process";
L925: function windowsCommand(file) {
High
Child Process
Package source references child process execution.
dist/diagnostics.jsView on unpkg · L9235256var func = `(${args}) => { ${body} };`;
L5257: ASM_CONSTS[start] = eval(func);
L5258: }
High
1import { createRequire as __createRequire } from "node:module"; const require = __createRequire(import.meta.url);
L2: var __create = Object.create;
Medium
Dynamic Require
Package source references dynamic require/import behavior.
dist/diagnostics.jsView on unpkg · L1Findings
1 Critical6 High4 Medium4 Low
CriticalRemote Response Code Executiondist/scanner/service.js
HighChild Processdist/diagnostics.js
HighEvaldist/diagnostics.js
HighSame File Env Network Executiondist/install/journey.js
HighCommand Output Exfiltrationdist/runtime/signers.js
HighSandbox Evasion Gated Capabilitydist/install/journey.js
HighCross File Remote Execution Contextdist/auth/credentials.js
MediumDynamic Requiredist/diagnostics.js
MediumNetwork
MediumEnvironment Vars
MediumStructural Risk Force Deep Review
LowFilesystem
LowHigh Entropy Strings
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to @mnemonik/cli@7.157.4.
See all versions of @mnemonik/cli for other recorded verdicts.
- Review the evidence and your use of @mnemonik/cli@7.157.4 before allowing it. Restrict the permissions described in this report.
- Choose an independently verified alternative or release. This report does not establish that other versions are safe.
Evidence last updated: .
Think this verdict is wrong? Dispute it on GitHub or read how reports are produced.