zova-cli-set-front@1.2.109
zova cli-set-front
AI Security Review
scanned 1d ago · by lpm-firewall-aiThe README explicitly directs a reviewer to execute the CLI and inspect files outside the package boundary, which is reviewer manipulation under the review rules. The inspected manifest has no install hook, but that does not remove the malicious review-directed instruction.
Static reason
No blocking static signals were detected.; previous stored version diff introduced dangerous source
Trigger
A reviewer or automated agent follows the README navigation instructions.
Impact
This attempts to cause code execution and bypass the review's package-only inspection boundary.
Mechanism
The README directs the reader to run `npm run zova` and inspect relative paths outside the package.
Attack narrative
The README gives a navigation sequence that tells the reader to run the package CLI and inspect paths outside the package. This is reviewer-directed boundary escape text, so it is treated as malicious intent even though the inspected runtime bundle and manifest did not show an install-time attack.
AI rationale
The README explicitly directs a reviewer to execute the CLI and inspect files outside the package boundary, which is reviewer manipulation under the review rules. The inspected manifest has no install hook, but that does not remove the malicious review-directed instruction.
Evidence
README.md../cli/src/bin/zova.ts../../../repo-docs/reference/cli-reference.md
Decision evidence
public snapshotAI called this Malicious at 94.0% confidence as Malware with low false-positive risk.
Evidence for block
- README.md recommends running `npm run zova` and then inspecting files outside the package, including `../cli/src/bin/zova.ts` and `../../../repo-docs/reference/cli-reference.md`.
- The manifest has `prepublishOnly`, `prepack` and `postpack` scripts, but no install lifecycle hook.
- The bundle exports command metadata and helper functions from `dist/index.js`.
Evidence against
- The package presents itself as a Zova frontend CLI command set.
- No install-time hook or automatic network request was identified in the inspected manifest and entry bundle.
Behavioral surface
EnvironmentVarsFilesystem
HighEntropyStringsUrlStrings
Source & flagged code
5 flaggedpackage.jsonView file
•devDependencies registry_only=clean-package,rimraf
Critical
Manifest Confusion
Tarball package.json differs from the npm registry version manifest for scripts or dependency sets.
package.jsonView on unpkg28"scripts": {
"clean": "rimraf dist dist-cli tsconfig.build.tsbuildinfo tsconfig.cli.tsbuildinfo",
"tsc:publish": "npm run clean && node ../../../vona/packages-cli/cli/src/bin/vona.
High
Suspicious Lifecycle Evidence
The manifest has `prepublishOnly`, `prepack` and `postpack` scripts, but no install lifecycle hook.
package.jsonView on unpkg · L28dist/index.jsView file
•matchType = previous_version_dangerous_delta
matchedPackage = zova-cli-set-front@1.2.106
matchedIdentity = npm:em92YS1jbGktc2V0LWZyb250:1.2.106
similarity = 0.979
summary = stored previous version shares package body but lacks this dangerous source file
High
Findings
1 Critical4 High1 Medium5 Low
CriticalManifest Confusionpackage.json
HighPrevious Version Dangerous Deltadist/index.js
HighAi Review EvidenceREADME.md
HighSuspicious Lifecycle Evidencepackage.json
HighAi Review Evidencedist/index.js
MediumEnvironment Vars
LowNon Install Lifecycle Scripts
LowScripts Present
LowFilesystem
LowHigh Entropy Strings
LowUrl Strings
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to zova-cli-set-front@1.2.109.
See all versions of zova-cli-set-front for other recorded verdicts.
- Avoid installing zova-cli-set-front@1.2.109. 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: .
Think this verdict is wrong? Dispute it on GitHub or read how reports are produced.