cve.bz

CAPEC-693

StarJacking

High severityMedium likelihoodDetailed pattern

An adversary spoofs software popularity metadata to deceive users into believing that a maliciously provided package is widely used and originates from a trusted source.

On this page

Many open-source software packages are hosted via third-party package managers (e.g., Node Package Manager, PyPi, Yarn, etc.) that allow for easy integration of software components into existing development environments. A package manager will typically include various metadata about the software and often include a link to the package's source code repository, to assist developers in determining the trustworthiness of the software. One common statistic used in this decision-making process is the popularity of the package. This entails checking the amount of "Stars" the package has received, which the package manager displays based on the provided source code repository URL. However, many package managers do not validate the connection between the package and source code repository being provided. Adversaries can thus spoof the popularity statistic of a malicious package by associating a popular source code repository URL with the package. This can ultimately trick developers into unintentionally incorporating the malicious package into their development environment.

Ask an AI about this attack pattern

Show the promptExplain the attack pattern CAPEC-693: StarJacking: how it unfolds, what it needs and how to prevent and detect it in my systems. Use https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html and https://cve.bz/cve/capec/693?via=ask-ai-copy, which lists recent CVEs with the weaknesses it exploits. Cite the sources.

Opens a third-party assistant; its answer is its own, not cve.bz's. The prompt holds only this attack pattern's id and public links.

How the attack unfolds

  1. Explore

    The attacker looks for a way in.

    1. [Identify target] The adversary must first identify a target package whose popularity statistics will be leveraged. This will be a popular and widely used package, as to increase the perceived pedigree of the malicious package.

  2. Experiment

    They probe what they found.

    1. [Spoof package popularity] The adversary provides their malicious package to a package manager and uses the source code repository URL identified in Step 1 to spoof the popularity of the package. This malicious package may also closely resemble the legitimate package whose statistics are being utilized.

  3. Exploit

    They carry out the attack.

    1. [Exploit victims] The adversary infiltrates development environments with the goal of conducting additional attacks.

      2 techniques
      • Active: The adversary attempts to trick victims into downloading the malicious package by means such as phishing and social engineering.
      • Passive: The adversary waits for victims to download and leverage the malicious package.

Prerequisites

  • Identification of a popular open-source package whose popularity metadata is to be used for the malicious package.

Skills required

  • Low skill

    Ability to provide a package to a package manager and associate a popular package's source code repository URL.

Consequences

What a successful attack can lead to
ImpactAffectsNote
Modify DataIntegrity
Hide ActivitiesAccountability
Execute Unauthorized Commands, Alter Execution Logic, Gain PrivilegesAccess Control, Authorization

Mitigations

  • Before downloading open-source packages, perform precursory metadata checks to determine the author(s), frequency of updates, when the software was last updated, and if the software is widely leveraged.

  • Look for conflicting or non-unique repository references to determine if multiple packages share the same repository reference.

  • Reference vulnerability databases to determine if the software contains known vulnerabilities.

  • Only download open-source packages from reputable package managers.

  • After downloading open-source packages, ensure integrity values have not changed.

  • Before executing or incorporating the package, leverage automated testing techniques (e.g., static and dynamic analysis) to determine if the software behaves maliciously.

Weaknesses it exploits

  • CWE-494 Download of Code Without Integrity Check

Recent CVEs with these weaknesses

  1. 7.2CVE-2026-118791

    The application implements software update functionality without adequate authenticity and integrity validation, allowing update packages to be accepted without sufficient cryptographic verification.

  2. 6.3CVE-2026-112170

    The software downloads upgrade files without performing integrity checks, allowing the installation of tampered updates.

  3. 9.2CVE-2026-118462

    Update components download and execute code without proper authenticity verification, relying on ignored hashes or forgeable checksums. Some update paths also permit archive traversal or script execution.

  4. 2.0CVE-2026-123508

    Vikunja before 2.7.1 contains a supply chain vulnerability in its mage release targets that fetch the xgo module and Docker image by mutable latest references. Attackers who compromise the upstream xgo module, image, or registry can inject…

  5. 7.5CVE-2026-104657

    Missing integrity verification in the Progress Software Fiddler Download and Setup Skill on Linux, macOS, and Windows which allows an attacker to compromise or influence a release component and execute attacker-controlled code when a user …

  6. 2.1CVE-2026-121750

    Node Version Manager (nvm) is a POSIX-compliant shell function for managing multiple node.js versions. In versions 0.40.5 through 0.40.8, `nvm_download_artifact` downloads a release archive directly to its final path in `$NVM_DIR/.cache` a…

  7. 8.6CVE-2026-110022

    The PFI plugin framework deploys executable assemblies (DLLs) from a signed plugin package into the local plugin repository and loads them via reflection, but the deployment routine processes archive entries that were never covered by the …

  8. 7.4CVE-2026-92092

    A flaw was found in openshift-ansible. The installer container's `run` script downloads and executes remote inventory and dynamic scripts without integrity verification. A remote attacker, by performing a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack or…

The newest records naming one of them. Each weakness's page lists them all.

Part of
  • CAPEC-691 Spoof Open-Source Software Metadata

Examples

In April 2022, Checkmarx reported that packages hosted on NPM, PyPi, and Yarn do not properly validate that t…

In April 2022, Checkmarx reported that packages hosted on NPM, PyPi, and Yarn do not properly validate that the provided GitHub repository URL actually pertains to the package being provided. Combined with additional attacks such as TypoSquatting, this allows adversaries to spoof popularity metadata by associating popular GitHub repository URLs with the malicious package. This can further lead to developers unintentionally including the malicious package within their development environments [REF-721].

MITRE's words, unchanged: CAPEC-693 at MITRE. CAPEC is Copyright © 2007–2026, The MITRE Corporation, used under the CAPEC terms of use: “The MITRE Corporation (MITRE) hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC™) for research, development, and commercial purposes. Any copy you make for such purposes is authorized provided that you reproduce MITRE’s copyright designation and this license in any such copy.” CAPEC and the CAPEC logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Credits. All attack patterns.