reader comments
142 with 97 posters participating, including story author
A developer has been caught adding malicious code to a popular open-source package that wiped files on computers located in Russia and Belarus as part of a protest that has enraged many users and raised concerns about the safety of free and open source software.
The application, node-ipc, adds remote interprocess communication and neural networking capabilities to other open source code libraries. As a dependency, node-ipc is automatically downloaded and incorporated into other libraries, including ones like Vue.js CLI, which has more than 1 million weekly downloads.
A deliberate and dangerous act
Two weeks ago, the node-ipc author pushed a new version of the library that sabotaged computers in Russia and Belarus, the countries invading Ukraine and providing support for the invasion, respectively. The new release added a function that checked the IP address of developers who used the node-ipc in their own projects. When an IP address geolocated to either Russia or Belarus, the new version wiped files from the machine and replaced them with a heart emoji.
To conceal the malice, node-ipc author Brandon Nozaki Miller base-64-encoded the changes to make things harder for users who wanted to visually inspect them to check for problems.
This is what those developers saw:
+ const n2 = Buffer.from("Li8=", "base64"); + const o2 = Buffer.from("Li4v", "base64"); + const r = Buffer.from("Li4vLi4v", "base64"); + const f = Buffer.from("Lw==", "base64"); + const c = Buffer.from("Y291bnRyeV9uYW1l", "base64"); + const e = Buffer.from("cnVzc2lh", "base64"); + const i = Buffer.from("YmVsYXJ1cw==", "base64");
These lines were then passed to the timer function, such as:
published its findings on Wednesday.
Tal found that the node-ipc author maintains 40 other libraries, with some or all of them also being dependencies for other open source packages. Referring to the node-ipc author’s handle, Tal questioned the wisdom of the protest and its likely fallout for the open source ecosystem as a whole.
“Even if the deliberate and dangerous act of maintainer RIAEvangelist will be perceived by some as a legitimate act of protest, how does that reflect on the maintainer’s future reputation and stake in the developer community?” Tal wrote. “Would this maintainer ever be trusted again to not follow up on future acts in such or even more aggressive actions for any projects they participate in?”
RIAEvangelist also came under fire on Twitter and in open source forums.
“This is like Tesla intentionally putting in code to detect certain drivers and if they vaguely match the description then to auto drive them into the nearest phone pole and hoping it only punishes particular drivers,” one person wrote. A different person added: “What if the deleted files are actually mission critical that can kill others?
