@validate.qa/runner@1.0.107
validate local test runner - execute Playwright tests on your machine, connected to validate.qa cloud.
AI Security Review
scanned 1d ago · by lpm-firewall-aiThe package identifies itself as a local Playwright runner, and the inspected credential flow uses a configured broker and app-host restrictions. The dynamic execution hint is consistent with validating generated test code; the inspected evidence does not establish credential theft or concealed remote code execution.
Decision evidence
public snapshot- The manifest describes a local Playwright test runner connected to validate.qa.
- Credential fields use a secret key reference instead of placing the credential value in the field record.
- Credential filling requires a broker URL and token from session environment variables; the broker request uses the `fill` operation.
- Credential filling checks that the page is a web page and restricts it to configured app hosts, with a specific Google sign-in exception.
- The dynamic `new Function` site shown validates generated test code after stripping imports and TypeScript syntax.
- The package includes process execution, network access, and dynamic code construction, but the inspected code ties these to test-runner and credential-filling features.
- The scanner’s browser-credential and remote-execution alerts are not confirmed as credential theft or concealed remote code execution in the inspected paths.
Source & flagged code
12 flaggedSource appears to collect browser login credentials for exfiltration.
dist/chunk-EAFAY4YD.mjsView on unpkg · L46Findings
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to @validate.qa/runner@1.0.107.
See all versions of @validate.qa/runner for other recorded verdicts.
- Review the evidence and your use of @validate.qa/runner@1.0.107 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.