kambxjowhdsgyw
This report shows the evidence for kambxjowhdsgyw@1.0.2. 3 of 3 known versions are blocked or flagged. See all versions.
AI Security Review
scanned 1mo ago · by lpm-firewall-aiThis is a concrete opaque browser redirect chain with a concealed remote destination and no legitimate package functionality. Although it has no npm lifecycle hook, opening its declared entry activates the malicious behavior.
Decision evidence
public snapshot- The sole browser entry loads a third-party Cloudflare challenge script.
- Its inline script is deliberately obfuscated and decrypts a concealed host URL before fetching redirect policy data.
- The script collects visitor URL parameters and replaces the browser location with a remotely supplied redirect.
- The package contains no stated application functionality beyond this opaque challenge-and-redirect page.
- package.json has no install or lifecycle scripts.
- The inspected files do not show local file access, environment access, or child-process execution.
Source & flagged code
5 flagged · loading sourceSource contains an obfuscated payload loader that reconstructs and executes hidden code.
index.htmlView on unpkg · L182A bounded semantic-analysis stage reached its safety limit; remaining detectors completed, but this package requires AI review.
index.htmlView on unpkgThe sole browser entry loads a third-party Cloudflare challenge script.
index.htmlView on unpkg · L9Findings
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to kambxjowhdsgyw@1.0.2.
The versions list below shows the verdict for each recorded version.
- Avoid installing kambxjowhdsgyw@1.0.2. 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.