bleepingcomputer.com
GitHub is investigating unauthorized access to their internal repositories - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48201316 - May 2026 (321 comments)
I used to work in security auditing, and it makes me feel pretty jaded to think of the gigabytes upon gigabytes of random stuff that just gets pulled in from everywhere in IDEs, package managers, build pipelines and container images.
At least back then there was still a chance to read a significant part of the code and find problems before they found you.
Almost no manager will sign-off spending time on building stuff in-house if its available "for free".
This is also in no way a new thing. How much code was written in notepad++ in the '00ies? Did anyone bother to check if the plugins did sth. malicious? We also used some weird closed-src "addon" for the Nullsoft installer to get a product out of the door, dont remember what the problem was exactly....
Like Wordpress plugins previously that'll work for now but we're now on the trajectory of relearning that same lesson, because people are automating discovery and exploitation of these extensions and plugins and whatnot around text editors and MCP and so on.
Though I suspect we'll first see a torrent of exploitation similar to what was done to Wordpress instances, and then a change of behaviour, because as you allude to, the people with influence didn't learn from previous experiences with similar technologies.
Some big corps resort to a different tactics: they ONLY allow in-house tools. IDEs, communication tools, everything you need on a daily basis, they make in-house tools for that. It costs a lot of money but they care about security.
Aaand this is why AI is taking our jobs and we all rightfully deserve to be laid off. This utter lack of risk awareness and care for quality is what created the need for autonomous agents to dig through and build upon man-made slop.
Honestly, I find it rich that we’re the ones who think that AI is the one that’s producing slop. Give any agent clear harnesses and it’ll produce better code than a human would close to 100% of the time. That’s still as indeterministic as the way you used “most of the time”, but the deviation tends to be smaller and the quality and rigor is much higher.
Convenience, and as someone who has been on the other side of the fence his whole career (sysadmin + security), dev != tech savvy. Even during my days in the help desk, the devs were some of the most difficult users to support. Being good at developing software doesn't always equate to being good at operating computer systems, especially in an enterprise environment.
It used to be, dev workstations and environments were fully IT controlled and curated. Then everyone moaned and complained about not having local admin access to their machine (I get it, it sucks and is annoying, but there is a reason), and then devtools started dumping themselves in %APPDATA& and user directories to bypass the admin requirement for installs. And now extensions are in everything, and IT has no tools to control it.
It's about more than lack of admin access. One uncomfortable truth I've realized over the course of my career is that the more IT "manages", the worse my computer becomes by basically any metric you can think of: stability, performance, predictability, inspectability. I've lost count of the number of times IT have broken things for me. Often, the security software they require itself has unacceptable, careless security flaws (e.g., hardcoded passwords, completely incorrect permissions checks).
Uptime of systems, even laptops, that I own can be measured in months. IT and security departments mandate the installation of so much downright shoddy software that they often end up requiring (sometimes formally!) weekly reboots just to keep the system "stable".
Frankly, I've yet to work at a company where IT or security has done what I would consider to be adequate testing of their own policies and tools. I have sadly learned down to my bones that each time I'm informed (if I'm ever informed!) that some new thing on my system will henceforth be "controlled" by some department that sees policies and standards as their mandate, no matter whether they have a "test group" that trials the stuff ahead of me or not, my system is about to permanently degrade. And more often than not, literally no one will be able to answer basic questions about the behavior of the system anymore, because the kind of people who buy and implement turnkey corporate IT solutions don't really know much about what that software does. (After all, not having to really know what it does is the whole selling point of such solutions.)
I am telling people to wear helmets when they drive a car, this would save hundreds of thousands of lives every year in the world, but somehow I cannot convince them.
Turns out no amount of communication to the team matters when you set Copilot to autopilot and it’s not aware of the compromised packages.
I suspect that’s going to be a trend.
Thats enough to see how much AI crowd cares about security.
And even if this exists, and you are sandboxed, with all guardrails and such, if you trust an extension that later gets compromised, you'd get the same sadness. It's the problems with trusting trust all over again...
Maybe sandboxing, plus freezing updates for at least a week, then on each update reviewing the permissions for each extension, then reviewing the extension itself for compromises. Something that should be done not by the user but by the supply chain itself.
This is how browsers have been doing things for 20 years, it's ridiculous that a company worth billions isn't doing it.
I heared zed sandboxes extensions. I should have a look at that editor some day.
Also, modifying my code is far better than just launching, stealing everything silently, and having full control over my system. Needing to inject some sort of malware into an arbitrary project is way better.
Finally I have decided to start using Zed, which isn’t perfect on the security front, but much better IMHO. The combination of WASM extensions, and the ability to put language servers, etc, in dev-containers seems like a great step forward.
I hope Zed continues to improve their extension and language server security model. Actually I hope VSCode does too, but honestly, I am not optimistic.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1tapmvi/mass_n...
Hopefully the system matures with time, but at least they're taking the problem seriously.
On my machines, the "languages"/"node" directories for zed are empty and owned by root and the lsp servers are provided by nix. But you could also pin known good versions with npm.
As far as I know Vscode has no equivalent way to do this.
Software that is mostly an electron app. I start using my browser for a web edition, or run it in a container/sandbox!
The best case for Microsoft software I hope for is that they do only some minor UI cosmetic changes, but even that often goes catastrophically wrong.
I just don't use VSCode and I discourage its use in any environment in which I have to work. It has already been demonstrated that it is a major security hole - not just through the public extensions, but also in terms of the telemetry data transmitted back to Microsoft in order that they can invest millions in it and yet charge nothing for it...
I'm guessing you're referring to https://coder.com/docs/code-server ?
To be honest I doubt there's much that they can do. Many many language servers cannot run in WASM, or it would be super hard to compile them to WASM. So Zed either has to allow running arbitrary binaries like VSCode, or accept that they're going to have really poor extension support.
I should be able to limit what binaries extensions have access to though.
Migrate off vscode already.
I guess I'd say "you take my VS Code ... willingly ... but only after M$ fucks it up and makes me not want it anymore (like they've done to everything else they acquired)".
It's not the IDE, though. Any extensible, customizable display editor can be coerced into behaving badly by installing external code. Even this one: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html
The root(-ish) cause here is the ease of publishing and installing extension code, and in particular the fact that there's no independent validation/verification step between the upstream author and armageddon. And upstream authors aren't set up with the needed precautions themselves, they're just hackers.
Basically if you phish Just One Account with write access to an extension you wan pwn everyone who's running it.
Zed is the closest thing I've found to meet my needs, and I do plan to try it. However it's dev container support looks to be lacking in some important ways so we'll see.
I'm not saying its package ecosystem isn't vulnerable to these kind of attacks, it is, but it's at least developed by folks with very different goals and ambitions than Microsoft.
[0]: https://github.com/emacs-mirror/emacs/blob/master/etc/NEWS
If these claims were true, why don't they point the agents at the numerous stability and security issues they have across their various platforms?
There's no connection to authoritative approval, other than making ecosystems without or without that kind of strict approval safer.
I use Emacs for my day-to-day stuff. I don't think Emacs extensions are more secure by design. Pretty sure that, if I wanted to, I could craft an extension that does bad things. I'm not sure how hard it would've been to sneak it past MELPA or (is there really anything else people are using these days? Used to be Marmalade, but I think it's gone), but, it's people, and people make mistakes, so, there's some % chance that a bad extension can be inserted there. Such security problems happen to a lesser extent (if at all?) in the Emacs world because of the size of the user base. It's simply impractical to target a small community, as it's always a numbers game.
Very unwillingly, and with a lot of contempt, I use Android, where this "explicit permissions system" you speak of exists. There are many reasons to hate Android, and the "explicit permissions system" is a prominent member in that collective.
Companies like MS, Google etc. always default to this way of solving their security issues: by restricting their users from doing useful things. They model their users as a herd of brainless lemmings who must be herded with an iron fist in order for them not to plunge to their deaths (yes, I know, real-life lemmings don't do that, but we all know the metaphor). And this tactics is so common that the MS-lemmings learn to yearn for it.
The solution I want to see to this and similar problems is two-fold:
1. Users learn to use their tools.
2. Users learn to treat important information on their computers in a more defensive way, if they open the door for outside, potentially bad, software providers.
This is, of course, a pie in the sky sort of wish... But, imagine it was achievable, wouldn't the world be a better place? Now, I believe it's possible to approach these goals gradually, and it would still be better than a system imposed by the software provider that prevents users from doing useful things.
For example, Emacs has a mechanism to prompt users when attempting to use a particular functionality. Some of it is because the functionality can be surprising for the novice, some of it is because it could be dangerous from the security standpoint. So, in principle, VSCode could do that too. Eg. a user would have to interactively grant its extensions permissions to call whatever functionality within the editor, while some "dangerous" functionality would have to be removed from the JavaScript runtime available to VSCode and only made available in this interactive way (eg. when JavaScript code in VSCode extensions wants to call exec() or similar, it would have to call an overloaded exec() provided by VSCode, that would inform the user that such-and-such extension wishes to run such-and-such command, and that it needs their permission to do it).
That Just Won't Happen. Especially not in a corporate/government setting. In my experience, it's rare for people to actually want to improve how they work without there being external pressure. Workflows once learned become very, very hard to unlearn and it's already a massive issue when you are responsible for a piece of business software that's used by a hundred users - I once was on a team responsible for the software used by tens of thousands of people. Major changes always, always had to be accompanied by training material and the time for that training had to be budgeted as well.
A large part of the issue is cultural/financial realities. People are already overloaded with work as penny pinchers think it's wise to keep people at 100% utilization leaving no gaps for anything - they know that if they become more efficient, their workload will not go down, their bosses will just dump more things on their table. And people don't want to train for their job if they're not paid for it, as well.
GitHub is investigating unauthorized access to their internal repositories - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48201316 - May 2026 (321 comments)
A company that wants to remain secure would have to employ strict restrictions on installing software. Only installing npm packages and plugins from an internal preapproved repo for example.
You regularly run tons of untrusted code when visiting websites. That code can't wreak havoc on your machine because it's well-sandboxed. Yet, if we advocate for sandboxing in more places, the "gun nuts of tech" scream about monopolistic practices and taking away user control.
At this point I try and get the most done with the least amount of extensions period. That and trying to get the rest of my code off of Github is the other.
Sublime's de facto package control repository is handled by an Uber engineer and father of 5 in his spare time, not someone currently at Sublime per https://packagecontrol.io/about / https://packagecontrol.io/say_thanks and his linked site.
VS Code Marketplace seems to have a number of protections in place: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/configure/extensions/exte... / https://code.visualstudio.com/api/advanced-topics/extension-...
It also appears that Sublime doesn't have sandboxing: https://github.com/sublimehq/sublime_text/issues/6915
> I love to see …
Be kind to others. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> "VSCode is perfect"
Is the claim "VSCode is perfect" one that you've regularly run across, that you specifically called it out?
(I'm personally happy that multiple editor options exist.)
(Separately, it doesn't help that MS doesn't allow VS Code forks to use the official marketplace, including as verified publisher doesn't seem to exist there - example: https://open-vsx.org/extension/esbenp/prettier-vscode )
(Ancillary links: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/configure/extensions/exte... / https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/VSCode )
Which is really insane when you think about it. Plan 9 had this sorted out decades ago.
Plan 9 was designed, Linux accreted.
Probably some old experiments in there but the company had its fingers in a few pies and some departments didn't mind creating yet another service to solve a problem.
I definitely archived the old stuff in my department (we had eight repos and that felt like enough for three people).
How many folders do you have on your computer with some bits of code? It's probably not a terrible practice to add those folders to GitHub.
Across a big engineering company that can easily add up to way more than 3,800!
AI is making this even worse. With coding agents, anyone can throw together a quick internal prototype of any idea they have, even if it has no hope of ever making it to production.
Some of those could be forks.
The ones used for running the site itself.
Though, its so many that i think there are some customer ones in there too.
MS and Github need their number to go up, not having people cleaning up their repos to avoid any loose ends.
I have hundreds of them, it took me a few hour to delete the unused ones. In a medium size org with thousands of them, it will take weeks for security to do a cleanup.
The problem is really how the very popular recent things on top have been built: Docker, npm, pip.
I personally do not have docker, npm or pip installed on my workstation because I know that any `xxx install` is almost the equivalent of downloading and executing a `.exe` on a Windows 95 back in the days.
Apparently what happened here is a Github employee VScode downloaded a compromised extension and it ran wild in his $HOME (npm, another Microsoft gem is involved here if I remember correctly).
How was the OS supposed to prevent that?
The idea is that a well-made, modern desktop operating system would extremely limit an executable's access to user files and provide intuitive tools to allow access. Most applications shouldn't even need any access beyond their own configuration directory and maybe something like ~/Document/Source Code for source code editors and IDE. It shouldn't need to access ~/Pictures, ~/Videos, ~/Downloads, etc.
The problem is that Windows would rather sell you OneDrive, and Linux is very far from a well-made modern desktop OS, so a transitive dependency on a linter installed by a VS Code plugin can rm -rf $HOME, I guess.
It's useful for apps that should not have any outbound networking
But fundamentally I don't think it moves the needle that much on the bigger picture
It's gotten a lot worse (and made news) more recently, as the downtime as increased.
All used techniques and mitigation strategies, including this one: https://npm-supply-chain-attack-techniques.pagey.site/
I mean, I understand that it is hard to sandbox Node.js applications, but apparently Microsoft has put way more effort into their Copilot slop than security.
[0] https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/52116
Don’t attack individuals for mistakes of a system.
Your security or their money (selling Copilot to enterprise customers): what would they choose, hmm? Surprise!
Just don’t install crap maybe.
I wonder how many other secrets and tokens have been stolen, just waiting to be abused to publish a malicious version of.. something.
IMO, the problem is [1] that actually rotation all secrets just because you might have installed a compromised packe is a huuge PITA. So it's tempting to take it lightly and hope for the best. And even if you really try, it's easy to miss one.
1: in addition to "running code from whereever" with little sandboxing
The dreaded "process" to get a single tool registered, working and allowed, is the reason a company is slow, dysfunctional and usually failing at a task.
The security tax and speeding tickets on everything are a luxury destroying much value.
Problem is: most employees don’t care to read these. Although I’m sure something like this could have been checked for during commit.
Like, I use a VSCode fork at work, but the enforced extensions store backend is based on an allowlist and extensions need reviewing to be available there.
What I ended up changing after contemplating this matter: all my MCP servers are scripts from my repository and not npm packages. All the information about the scopes these servers can use is contained explicitly in my context file (certain directories, certain tools). There's nothing untrusted reaching my filesystem/tokens.
There's the same supply chain problem in VSCode extensions as there is with the MCP servers. Very few companies that audit their extensions started auditing their MCP servers.
A fine grained token is likely to have read access to the IaaS repo as that is likely the very repo they are operating on when the malware compromises them.
3800 repos up for blackmail may make a good headline but it's likely that Github don't really care about 3798 of those repos being made public. It'd be annoying for those 3798 to be made public but they can deal with that. It's the 2 repos that contain really important stuff that they really don't want to be made public. You can't rely on fine grained tokens to limit the leak of these things as, at some point, someone with that very access will get compromised.
Limiting TTL on tokens/auth isn't a perfect solution either. If the token is leaked via some malware it can be used to clone repos within minutes (even seconds) of being leaked. No-one wants to have to perform 2FA every few seconds in order to get on with their day.
IP based restrictions may help, but then the malware would probably evolve to include a tailscale/wireguard key so that the clone/exfiltration is done from the existing IP address and then the data is proxied away separately.
Future dev environments are going to be heavily sandboxed in terms of "do github stuff in this sandbox, copy files to another sandbox to do package updates, vet everything coming back, etc"
agree generally with what your getting at though: doesn't solve this problem. but even just a basic reduction in blast radius would be nice.
https://github.blog/security/investigating-unauthorized-acce... links to https://github.com/nrwl/nx-console/security/advisories/GHSA-... Nx Console
Guess what they did a year ago.
They removed 700 or so packages from NuGet proactively but those turned out to be false positives.
It is hard to do the right things.
FTFY
If you want to use extensions or node packages or pypi packages without doing a detailed review you're accumulating technical debt. You're assuming a risk in order to ship rapidly. You can either pay that down at some point under control, or bear the interest when it comes due.
- Enable audit log streaming[1] on your enterprise including source IPs and API requests, even if it’s just going to an S3 bucket nobody looks at it, your incident response team will thank you later.
- Enforce the use of SSO on your GitHub organization[2], not just because SSO is good but because it forces an explicit authorization action[3] by users to grant an SSH key/PAT access to your organization resources, instead of granting access implicitly. That way the PAT created for someone’s weekend project won’t have access to your organization resources.
- Enforce an IP allowlist[4] for your organization from a set of known trusted VPN/corporate IPs. This is by-far the strongest control (and the most painful to rollout) as it will prevent stolen credentials (even if still valid) from being used by an attacker except on the intended systems where you (hopefully) have other visibility/alerting via EDR or related tooling.
- If you can, restrict access from personal access tokens[5] to your organization resources. Blocking classic PATs and enforcing a maximum expiration (ex: 3 months) on fine-grained PATs is a great way to reduce risk if you can’t eliminate PATs altogether[6].
- If you use GitHub enterprise (on-prem), configure collection of the raw HTTP access logs[7] in addition to native GitHub audit logs, it may prove critical during incident response.
[1]: https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/mon... [2]: https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/authentic... [3]: https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/authentic... [4]: https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/organizat... [5]: https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/organizat... [6]: https://edu.chainguard.dev/open-source/octo-sts/overview/ [7]: https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-server@3.16/admin/moni...
Bad enough that the employee was able to install arbitrary executable code without review from anyone, but also why did they have access to 3,800 repos? Are they working on all of them right now? Are they pulling in code from all of them into their current projects?
People like to rail against traditional IT staffs and departments, especially the startup crowd that lives around here but there is a reason you put up controls and reviews and don't just let everyone have admin on their laptops (yes, I get that this wasn't necessarily abuse of admin on the employee's laptop)
We aren't talking about a single dev developing an IDE on their spare time. We are talking about a company with expenses and revenues in billions. They could develop and support replacement for every single extension in the vscode marketplace (most are redundants) and it would still be an invisible blip in their financial numbers.
I'm not saying it was whatwedo.twig, but I'm not saying it wasn't, either.
Edit: If anyone's got a good recommendation for a twig formatter for Cursor / VS Code, please let me know.
They also have an online demo/playground so you can at least give it a shot to see if it works.
I’ve used the twiggy LSP before and there seems to be a few VS code extensions for it: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=moetelo.... and https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=Stanisla...
I wonder if it was open-vsx specific?
https://github.com/nrwl/nx-console/security/advisories/GHSA-...
https://www.stepsecurity.io/blog/nx-console-vs-code-extensio...
* There's a line of "blessed plugins" that your own company supports, maintains and guarantees, and everything else is considered "not trusted" or
* Plugins have explicit permissions - like phone apps do. "This plugin can make external calls/write to the filesystem inside a dedicated folder/read and set cookies". And then you are in charge of enforcing that with the strongest sandbox you can make.
Plugin ecosystems without these rules are just the wild west.
Let's face it though - things are working pretty well at gigantic scales despite that. Apparently, what we have now works. There would certainly be wrongdoers who abuse it at this scale, and some of them could be significant abuses. But, however you look at it, things are working well at large.
Am I blind or did they never say which extension that was?
It is the largest project I have ever build and I code since 25 years.
I was just not satisfied with the agentic tools out there, nor with the CI / build infrastructure. Nix is nice, but the way packages are build / signed is just half way to perfect.
We can be lucky that the github hack did not infect the CI infrastructure. Imagine you infect the compilers in github CI to add a sleeper worm that does nothing for a month...
Only if you have multiple parties, building the same software with bootstrapped compilers and every artifact is hash compared, you can be sure it is legit
I was also toying with comparimg timestamps of git tags / GitHub releases / GitHub actions / plugin update timestamps as one indicator of potential tempering.
But not ideal.
yesterday discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48191680
vscode has no security model. It's not like swiss cheese where there are holes and some of the go all the way through. vscode is all hole with some cheese on the side. There is absolutely no isolation between the front-end process, the backend size (the thing that runs in the remote or the devcontainer), and any extensions or anything that might be in a repository whose authors you "trust".
The malware (be it a VSCode plugin, an npm package, or whatever is next) simply slurps up all of the users private keys/tokens/env-vars it can find and sends this off somewhere covertly.
It's trivial to do this in a way to avoid detection. The small payload can be encrypted (so it can't be pattern matched) and then the destination can be one of millions of already compromised websites found via a google search and made to look like a small upload (it could even be chunked and uploaded via query parameters in a HTTP GET request).
The hackers receive the bundle of compromised tokens/keys and go look at what they give access to. Most of the time it's going to be someone's boring home network and a couple of public or private github repos. But every once in a while it's a developer who works at a big organisation (e.g. Github) with access to lots of private repos.
The hackers can then use the keys to clone all of the internal/private repos for that organisation that the compromised keys have access to. Some organisations may have alerts setup for this, but by the time they fire or are actioned upon the data will probably be downloaded. There's no re-auth or 2FA required for "git clone" in most organisations.
With this data the hackers have further options:
a) attempt to extort the company to pay a ransom on the promise of deleting the data
b) look for more access/keys/etc buried somewhere in the downloaded repos and see what else they can find with those
c) publish it for shits and giggles
d) try and make changes to further propagate the malware via similar or new attack vectors
e) analyse what has been downloaded to work out future attack vectors on the product itself
Right now Github (and others recently compromised in similar ways) will be thinking about what information is in those internal repos and what damage would it cause if that information became public, or what that information could be used to find out further down the line.
"Customer data should not be in a github repo" is all well and good, but if the customer data is actually stored in a database somewhere in AWS and there's even just one read-only access token stored somewhere in one private github repo, then there's a chance that the hackers will find that and exfiltrate the customer data that way.
Preventing the breach is hard. There will always be someone in an org who downloads and installs something on their dev machine that they shouldn't, or uses their dev machine for personal browsing, or playing games, or the company dev infra relies on something that is a known attack vector (like npm).
Preventing the exfiltration is virtually impossible. If you have a machine with access to the Internet and allow people to use a browser to google things then small payloads of data can be exfiltrated trivially. (I used to work somewhere where the dev network was air-gapped. The only way to get things onto it was typing it in, floppy or QIC-150 tape - in the days before USB memory sticks.)
Detecting the breach is nigh on impossible if the keys are not used egregiously. Sure some companies can limit access to things like Github to specific IPs, but it wouldn't take much for the malware to do something to work around this. (I can see things like a wireguard/tailscale client being embedded in malware to allow the compromised machine to be used as a proxy in such cases.)
Alerting that requires manual response is nigh on useless as by the time someone has been paged about something the horse has already bolted.
Knowing what has been taken is also a huge burden. 3800 repos that people now have to think about and decide what the implications are. Having been through something like this in the past there are plenty of times people go "I know that repo, it's fine, we can ignore that one" only for it to contain something they don't realise could be important.
These kind of attacks are going to become increasingly common as they're proven to work well and the mitigations for them are HARD. It doesn't need to be targeted at all either, you just infect a bunch of different things and see what gets sent in.
If companies continue to not pay the ransom then we're going to get a lot more things published and many companies having to apologise for all manner of things that end up being leaked.
I'd love to see a real example/PoC.
Anyway, we discussed this issue in the other thread. For me, unrestricted outbound requests to any url, whether it's well known domains like api.github.com or any other domain, are a red flag.
Why does VS need to establish outbound requests to any domain, without authorization?
There's no magic solution, and these attacks will evolve, but I still think that restricting outbound requests is a good measure to mitigate these attacks.
> slurps up all of the users private keys/tokens/env-vars it can find and sends this off somewhere covertly.
Isolating applications can also mitigate the impact of these attacks. For example, you can restrict VS code to only share with the host .vscode/, .git/ and other directories. Even by project. Again, it's not bulletproof, but helps.
Paying the ransom means your data still gets leaked and now you're out of money and embarrassed.
Why would they ever, ever, delete the data?
Not the first time we've seen a developer get popped thanks to a malicious game mod either...
How is this not really, really bad?
Security researchers identified a series of exploitable vulnerabilities in github.com by using LLMs to review the compiled GitHub Enterprise Server binaries: https://www.wiz.io/blog/github-rce-vulnerability-cve-2026-38...
Maybe they looked it up and there wasn't anything interesting but then why take the risk for this kind of money?
Something doesn't make sense.
You have to take their words for it but how can you trust crooks?
Because these are repeat actors. If they take a ransom and then re-sell it, no company will pay them ever again.
Don't think of experienced criminal enterprises as "groups of irrational scoundrels." They are companies, with employees, who understand game theory.
It is a blind auction with a $50k minimum bid.
I keep reading about vscode extensions going malicious and I feel the same way as I did when I was reading (and still am) about all the malicious browser extensions. I don't understand the lack of security around "extensions" in all sectors..
So great that they removed the extension! Do they do it only after their own employee was infected? And why "unnamed" extension?
> “unnamed”
Why is “unnamed” in quotation marks?
Me: "Okay, I'd like to make signed trusted code, how do I do that?"
Microsoft: "don't worry, we have the most expensive and tedious signing process in the industry."
Me: "okay, will users be properly protected from malicious code then?"
Microsoft: "Nope!"
I'm also mirroring public ones to Codeberg.
I'll write about it when I'm done.
Looks like it
Funny / Odd Names
old-man-yells-at extremely-verbose-application mildly-sentient-scripts awful-git-machine awful-archive-machine slop-trap yaktriage yakety-yak what-in-the-shell gh-hell amen afk beer coffee
Octo-Themed
octoqueer octogatos octokeg octopets-prototype octoquarium octodex force-directed-octocat
Animal / Random Names
kittens Cats-of-GitHub accesscats-and-friends adacats-and-friends suave-capybaras nifty-armadillos cuddly-broccoli torched-marshmallows
AI / Experimental
reflect-gpt reflect-gpt-reloaded experimental-copilot-server agentic-memory-playground codeml-autofix copilot-mission-control llm-assist snippet-gpt meeting-summarizer
Internal Culture / Tools
no-meeting-friday-reminder engineering-deadlines engineering-operations-playground forced-deploys four-nines-alerts incident-responder oncall-issue-creator alert-routing-verifier dependency-audit availability-risk-register
Misc / Interesting
the-after-party pong gameoff github-games caption-this haikus-for-codespaces this-day-in-github-history
- disable auto-updates for extensions in VS Code/Cursor
- use static analysis for GitHub Actions to catch security issues in pre-commit hook and on ci: https://github.com/zizmorcore/zizmor
- set locally: pnpm config set minimum-release-age 4320 # 3 days in minutes https://pnpm.io/supply-chain-security
- for other package managers check: https://gist.github.com/mcollina/b294a6c39ee700d24073c0e5a4e...
- add Socket Free Firewall when installing npm packages on CI to catch malware https://docs.socket.dev/docs/socket-firewall-free#github-act...
> for other package managers
For other js package managers. Sadly such functionality seems far less common for c# (nuget) or rust (cargo).
> add Socket Free Firewall when installing npm packages on CI to catch malware
It appears that functionality depends on blacklisting malware from being downloaded? But don't the repositories (npm, etc) take down malware once it's identified - is socket actually blacklisting malware faster than npm? That sounds unlikely, but maybe? For the vs code extension from the op post, it seems like it was live for like 18 minutes on the official vs code marketplace, and slightly longer on openvsx as ms sadly doesn't allow vs code clones to use the official marketplace.
If you don't (or can't) install extensions, it also doesn't matter which IDE you use.