registry / @uipath/ap-chat / 1.7.1
@uipath/ap-chat@1.7.1
⚠ Under reviewApollo Design System - Autopilot Chat web component
AI Security Review
scanned 2d ago · by lpm-firewall-aiThe scanner’s critical match is explained by syntax-highlighting grammar text, and the inspected excerpts show no concrete attack behavior. Some declared runtime dependency source remains unverified, including the dependency referenced by the service declarations, so the review remains unresolved.
Static reason
High-risk behavior combination matched malicious policy.
Trigger
Importing the package entrypoint or using its service API.
Impact
No confirmed attack impact; incomplete dependency source review prevents a clean certification.
Mechanism
The inspected package code contains browser storage and webpack chunk loading; no malicious transfer or execution path was established.
AI rationale
The scanner’s critical match is explained by syntax-highlighting grammar text, and the inspected excerpts show no concrete attack behavior. Some declared runtime dependency source remains unverified, including the dependency referenced by the service declarations, so the review remains unresolved.
Evidence
package.jsondist/service.d.tsdist/index.jsdist/vendors-74.js
Decision evidence
public snapshotAI called this Manual Review at 82.0% confidence as Unknown with medium false-positive risk.
AI review observations
- The package exposes its main entry through the bundled dist/index.js file.
- The manifest lists ordinary UI dependencies, including @uipath/apollo-react; their source is not fully available in this snapshot.
- The inspected bundle uses browser storage with an ap-chat-prefixed key.
- The flagged vendor match for fetch appears in a language grammar pattern, not an observed network call.
- The service type declarations re-export APIs from @uipath/apollo-react.
- The main bundle loads multiple webpack chunks.
Evidence against
- The inspected package manifest contains no install lifecycle script.
- The inspected bundle excerpts show no concrete download, execution, or credential-transfer behavior.
Behavioral surface
EvalNetwork
HighEntropyStringsMinifiedPossibleObfuscationTelemetryUrlStrings
Source & flagged code
6 flagged · loading sourcedist/vendors-74.jsView file
1(self.webpackChunk_uipath_ap_chat=self.webpackChunk_uipath_ap_chat||[]).push([["71"],{47312:function(e,t,a){function n(e){e.languages["nand2tetris-hdl"]={comment:/\/\/.*|\/\*[\s\S]...
Critical
Download Execute
Source downloads or fetches remote code and executes it.
dist/vendors-74.jsView on unpkg · L11n|inherit|let|null|or|then|with)\b/,function:/\b(?:abort|add|all|any|attrNames|attrValues|baseNameOf|compareVersions|concatLists|currentSystem|deepSeq|derivation|dirOf|div|elem(?:At)?|fetch(?:Tarball|url)|filter(?:Source)?|fromJSON|genList|getAttr|getEnv|hasAttr|hashString|head|import|intersectAttrs|is(?:Attrs|Bool|Function|Int|List|Null|String)|length|lessThan|listToAttrs|map|mul|parseDrvName|pat
Low
Ai Review Evidence
The flagged vendor match for fetch appears in a language grammar pattern, not an observed network call.
dist/vendors-74.jsView on unpkg · L1package.jsonView file
10"main": "./dist/index.cjs",
"module": "./dist/index.js",
"types": "./dist/index.d.ts",
"exports": {
".": {
"types": "./dist/index.d.ts",
"import":
Findings
1 Critical1 Medium10 Low
CriticalDownload Executedist/vendors-74.js
MediumNetwork
LowScripts Present
LowEval
LowHigh Entropy Strings
LowTelemetry
LowUrl Strings
LowAi Review Evidencepackage.json
LowSuspicious Dependency Evidencepackage.json
LowAi Review Evidencedist/index.js
LowAi Review Evidencedist/vendors-74.js
LowAi Review Evidencedist/service.d.ts
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to @uipath/ap-chat@1.7.1.
See all versions of @uipath/ap-chat for other recorded verdicts.
- Review the evidence and your use of @uipath/ap-chat@1.7.1 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.