Gluestack React Native NPM Supply Chain Attack: Deep Dive & Defense Plan

I. Gluestack NPM Attack: High-Impact Threat Demands Immediate Action – The Full Story

Alright, buckle up, because the software supply chain is a battleground, and we’ve got a live one. A significant, active supply chain attack has compromised widely used Node Package Manager (NPM) packages right in the React Native development ecosystem. We’re talking about at least 16 popular packages under the @react-native-aria and @gluestack-ui scopes, components that, get this, are downloaded nearly one million times every week. The payload? A nasty Remote Access Trojan (RAT) that hands attackers persistent control over compromised developer machines or build servers.

With this kind of foothold, attackers can unleash a barrage of malicious activities, from stealing sensitive data and executing arbitrary commands to potentially burrowing deeper into organizational networks. This isn’t a theoretical exercise, it’s an ongoing threat. Reports even indicated that new compromised package versions were being published even as the security community was scrambling to understand the scope. The sheer popularity of these packages means this malicious code has likely been integrated into countless development environments and, more alarmingly, applications across a multitude of industries.

So, what’s the immediate action plan? It’s a three-pronged assault:

1. Identify: Launch an immediate, thorough audit of all your development projects and Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipelines. You need to pinpoint any use of the compromised package versions, and fast.
2. Remediate: As soon as maintainers release verified clean versions, update. If clean versions aren’t available, or if the packages are non-critical, rip them out.
3. Scan: Proactively hunt for Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) tied to this RAT and its command-and-control (C2) communications.

The staggering volume of weekly downloads highlights the potential for rapid and widespread initial infection. Attackers are exploiting the inherent trust developers place in package managers and popular libraries, knowing that packages are often updated or installed without exhaustive scrutiny of every single version change. This makes compromising such foundational components an exceptionally efficient malware distribution superhighway. This incident is a stark, brutal reminder of the inherent fragility of the open-source software supply chain and the potential for cascading failures when core building blocks are poisoned.

II. Unpacking the Gluestack Supply Chain Compromise: Scope and Prevalence – How Far Did This Spread?

This attack targets foundational components, the very nuts and bolts integral to modern mobile application development. The compromised packages, @react-native-aria and @gluestack-ui, provide User Interface (UI) components and accessibility features crucial for building applications with React Native. Consider NativeBase, a popular UI component library, it leverages React Native ARIA for accessibility. When you compromise such fundamental elements, you ensure a broad blast radius. These aren’t niche or obscure packages, they are tools actively used by developers to construct the user-facing applications your customers interact with daily. Consequently, the malicious code could be embedded in a vast array of applications across diverse sectors.

At least 16 distinct packages under the @react-native-aria and @gluestack-ui scopes were identified as compromised. The following table details these packages, their last known compromised versions as reported around the incident discovery, and their approximate weekly download counts, illustrating the sheer scale of potential exposure.

Table 1: Compromised Gluestack NPM Packages and Versions (as of early June 2025)

Collectively, these compromised packages account for approximately 960,000 weekly downloads from the NPM registry. This staggering figure translates to a high probability that the malicious code was integrated into numerous development environments, build pipelines, and potentially, into pre-production or even production applications if it slipped through undetected. The NPM website itself lists various versions for packages like @gluestack-ui/react-native-aria, indicating a history of updates where malicious code could have been surreptitiously inserted.

The fact that attackers compromised not just one, but a whole suite of related packages, suggests a level of access that goes beyond a simple, isolated credential theft. It points towards a more systemic vulnerability within the Gluestack publishing infrastructure or the compromise of multiple maintainer accounts associated with these packages. Furthermore, the high download counts for utility-like packages, such as react-native-aria/utils and gluestack-ui/utils, are particularly concerning. These types of packages often serve as transitive dependencies for many other components or applications. This means developers might not directly install these utility packages but will inadvertently pull them in when installing a higher-level component that relies on them. Such indirect inclusion amplifies the reach of the malicious code and makes detection more challenging for organizations that only scan their direct dependencies. This “fan-out” effect is a common characteristic of software supply chain attacks, where a compromise in a single, widely used foundational library can rapidly pollute a vast ecosystem of downstream projects.

III. Anatomy of the Attack: Mapping to the MITRE ATT&CK® Framework – The Hacker’s Playbook

This supply chain attack demonstrates a multi-stage intrusion, leveraging several tactics and techniques documented in the MITRE ATT&CK® framework. Understanding this mapping provides a standardized way to describe the attacker’s behavior and helps align defensive strategies.

• Initial Access

• T1195.002: Compromise Software Supply Chain: This is the linchpin of the attack. Threat actors gained unauthorized access to the NPM package publishing mechanism for Gluestack. This allowed them to inject malicious code into legitimate software components that are distributed through a trusted channel, the NPM registry. This technique is highly effective as it bypasses traditional perimeter defenses by poisoning the well from which developers draw their tools.

• Execution

• T1059.007: JavaScript/JScript: The initial malicious payload, embedded within the JavaScript files of the NPM packages (e.g., lib/index.js), is executed by the Node.js runtime environment. This occurs when a developer installs the compromised package (e.g., via npm install) and then incorporates it into their application build or execution process.
• T1059.004: Unix Shell / T1059.003: Windows Command Shell: The Remote Access Trojan (RAT), once activated, is capable of executing arbitrary shell commands relayed from the attacker’s C2 server. This capability was noted in the analysis of a nearly identical RAT found in a previous NPM compromise attributed to the same actors, granting attackers direct command-line interaction with the compromised system.

• Defense Evasion

• T1027: Obfuscated Files or Information: The malicious JavaScript code was heavily obfuscated. Furthermore, it was appended to the end of a legitimate source code file and padded with a significant number of spaces. This was a deliberate tactic to make the malicious code less conspicuous and evade casual inspection by developers browsing the code on the NPM website or within their local node_modules directory.
• T1574.007: Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable (Hijack Execution Flow): A sophisticated technique employed by the RAT involved Windows PATH hijacking. The malware prepended a fake Python installation path (%LOCALAPPDATA%\Programs\Python\Python3127) to the system’s PATH environment variable. This allows the malware to intercept legitimate calls to python or pip commands, redirecting them to execute malicious binaries instead. This method is particularly insidious in developer environments where Python is a common tool.

• Command and Control (C2)

• T1071.001: Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols: The RAT establishes communication with an attacker-controlled C2 server. While the specific protocol for this RAT was not detailed in initial reports, web protocols like HTTP or HTTPS are commonly used for such C2 channels. This allows attackers to remotely issue commands and manage the compromised asset.

• Exfiltration

• T1041: Exfiltrate Data Over C2 Channel: The RAT possesses capabilities to exfiltrate data from the victim’s machine to the attacker’s C2 server. Commands such as ss_upf (screenshot upload file) and ss_upd (screenshot upload directory), noted in the analysis of the similar, previously discovered RAT, confirm data theft as a key objective or capability.

Table 2: MITRE ATT&CK Techniques Observed in the Gluestack NPM Attack

The use of PATH hijacking targeting a fake Python installation is a particularly crafty technique. In developer environments, Python is frequently used for scripting, automation, and various development tools. By intercepting common commands like python and pip, the malware can stealthily execute its own malicious code whenever a developer believes they are running a legitimate Python-related task. This makes the malicious activity blend in with normal developer operations, significantly reducing the chances of detection.

The combination of a sophisticated initial access vector (T1195.002) with advanced defense evasion techniques (T1027, T1574.007) points to a well-resourced and knowledgeable attacker. Such an operation requires not only the ability to compromise package publishing mechanisms but also the technical skill to develop and deploy evasive malware. This was not a rudimentary attack but a carefully planned operation designed for stealth, persistence, and significant impact. The full spectrum of ATT&CK tactics observed, from initial access to exfiltration, indicates that the payload was not mere nuisance malware but a serious intrusion tool designed for long-term control and information theft.

IV. Assessing the Threat: Risk Profile and Exploitability – How Bad Is It, Really?

The Gluestack NPM supply chain attack presents a significant and immediate risk due to its remote exploitability and the powerful capabilities of the delivered payload. This isn’t kid stuff.

• Attack Vector – Remote and Passive: Exploitation is inherently remote. Developers unwittingly introduce the malicious code by including a compromised package version in their project’s package.json and running npm install or an equivalent. From the victim’s side, the initial compromise of a developer’s machine or a build server is largely passive. No direct user interaction, like clicking a phishing link, is required once the tainted package hits the repository. This low-interaction-cost attack vector makes it highly scalable and a nightmare to prevent solely through traditional user-focused security awareness.
• The RAT – A Powerful Beachhead: The primary payload is a Remote Access Trojan (RAT). Cybersecurity firm Aikido Security noted the malicious code was “nearly identical to a remote access trojan in another NPM compromise they discovered last month.” Based on such RATs and specific commands identified, this trojan likely allows attackers to:

• Execute arbitrary shell commands.
• Download additional malicious payloads.
• Upload files from the victim’s machine (hello, data exfiltration).
• Perform directory and file manipulation.
• The Windows PATH hijacking technique further enhances its stealth and persistence. The RAT effectively turns a seemingly innocuous package installation into a full system compromise, giving attackers a strong, persistent foothold.

• Attack Chain Potential – Beyond Initial Compromise, It Gets Worse: The initial infection is often just the opening act. With a RAT installed, attackers can:

• Deeper Infiltration: Use the RAT as a dropper for more potent malware, think ransomware, advanced spyware, credential stealers, or cryptominers.
• Privilege Escalation: Probe for and exploit local system vulnerabilities to escalate privileges, potentially gaining administrative (SYSTEM or root) access.
• Lateral Movement: Developer machines and build servers are treasure troves, often containing source code, API keys, internal network credentials, and cloud service access tokens. From a compromised dev machine, attackers can pivot to other systems, escalating a single-machine compromise to a full-blown network breach.
• Persistence: The RAT itself is designed for this. The Windows PATH hijacking is a clever way to maintain that foothold. By ensuring malicious code executes whenever legitimate Python tools are invoked, the malware can survive even if the initial compromised NPM package is cleaned, as long as the PATH modification goes unnoticed.

• Weaponization Status – Actively Deployed, Not a Drill: This isn’t theoretical. The malicious packages containing the RAT were successfully published to the official NPM repository. They were fully weaponized and actively distributed. Any project that pulled these compromised versions was, and potentially still is if unpatched, directly at risk.

The strategic choice of a RAT, rather than immediately destructive malware like a wiper (seen in other NPM attacks), suggests attackers had objectives beyond simple disruption. RATs are tools for espionage, long-term access, and control. The investment in obfuscation and persistence aligns with goals of sustained intelligence gathering, data exfiltration, or using compromised systems as launchpads. This implies the primary value for attackers is the access gained and the data stealable, not just immediate chaos.

Developer machines and build servers are high-value targets due to the sensitive assets they house. Compromising these can provide attackers with the “keys to the kingdom,” including proprietary source code, critical infrastructure credentials, and pathways into secured network segments. The true risk extends far beyond the initial package infection, it’s the potential for attackers to leverage that foothold for much broader, more damaging campaigns. Incident response must consider this deeper compromise potential.

V. Defensive Posture: Mitigation and Detection Strategies – Your Battle Plan

Addressing the Gluestack NPM threat requires a multi-layered approach: immediate containment, proactive defense, and robust monitoring.

• Immediate Actions – Containment and Eradication:

• Patching/Updating: Top priority: Identify all projects using affected @react-native-aria and @gluestack-ui packages (see Table 1). Update to verified clean versions immediately upon release by maintainers. Monitor advisories from Gluestack, NPM, and security news.
• Removal: If clean versions aren’t available, or packages aren’t critical, remove them entirely.
• Integrity Verification: Best practice: Verify package integrity using hashes or PGP signatures if provided by maintainers (though not specifically noted for Gluestack initially).

• Proactive Defense – Hardening the Software Supply Chain:

• Dependency Scanning: Implement and consistently use automated tools (npm audit, Snyk, Dependabot, Socket, Aikido Security, Cycode offerings) to scan dependencies for known vulnerabilities early.
• Strict Dependency Management:

• Version Pinning: Enforce version pinning in lockfiles (package-lock.json, yarn.lock). Avoid loose version ranges (^1.2.3) for critical dependencies, as these can auto-pull malicious updates. Lockfiles are paramount.
• Private NPM Registry/Proxy: For mature DevSecOps, use a private NPM registry or proxy. These cache approved packages, allowing vetting before developer use.

• Minimize Dependencies: Adopt minimalism. Only incorporate essential third-party libraries. A smaller dependency footprint means a smaller attack surface.
• Disable Automatic Script Execution (ignore-scripts): Powerful mitigation: Configure NPM to ignore lifecycle scripts by default. Set ignore-scripts=true in .npmrc or globally (npm config set ignore-scripts true). This prevents postinstall scripts (common malware vector) from auto-running.

• Caveat: Some legitimate packages need postinstall for compilation/setup (e.g., bcrypt, node-sass). If ignore-scripts is global, an allow-list for trusted packages (e.g., using LavaMoat’s allow-script package) may be needed.

• Monitoring and Detection – Identifying Active Compromise:

• Network Monitoring: Continuously monitor outbound traffic from developer workstations and build servers. Look for suspicious connections to unknown/newly observed domains/IPs (potential C2).
• Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR):

• Deploy and configure EDR on developer endpoints and build infrastructure. Tune to monitor for suspicious processes spawned by node.exe, especially those executing shell commands, PowerShell, or modifying critical configs like PATH.
• Specifically look for unusual Python paths like %LOCALAPPDATA%\Programs\Python\Python3127.
• Implement EDR rules for known evasion techniques.

• Indicators of Compromise (IoCs): Actively hunt for IoCs (C2 domains/IPs, RAT file hashes, registry keys) as they become public (via Aikido Security, BleepingComputer, etc.).

• Developer Awareness and Training:

• Educate development teams on supply chain risks and secure package management.
• Train developers to scrutinize new dependencies, check sources, and report suspicious behavior.
• Emphasize least privilege, discouraging npm install or builds with admin rights unless absolutely necessary.

The ignore-scripts flag highlights a tension: developer convenience (automated scripts) versus security. Using ignore-scripts shifts to a more secure default. Private registries reflect a “Zero Trust” philosophy for dependencies: verify, don’t inherently trust public repos. This reduces risk from newly compromised packages.

Ultimately, effective mitigation is defense-in-depth: prevention (strict dependency management, ignore-scripts), detection (network/endpoint monitoring), and ongoing developer education. No silver bullet exists.

VI. Sector-Specific Impact Analysis and Preparedness: Higher Ed & Healthcare on High Alert

The Gluestack NPM attack poses significant, though nuanced, risks. Higher education and healthcare, with their unique landscapes and data sensitivities, are particularly vulnerable.

1. Higher Education Institutions

• Vulnerability Landscape – Why Universities are Targets:

• Modern Tech Adoption: Universities heavily use modern web/mobile tech (including React Native) for student portals, LMS, admin tools, and research, making them consumers of packages like Gluestack.
• Heterogeneous Environments: A mix of cutting-edge and legacy systems creates complex IT environments with potential security gaps and an expanded attack surface.
• Cloud & Open Networks: Widespread cloud adoption and open campus Wi-Fi (for a diverse, transient user base with BYOD) make network segmentation and endpoint control challenging.
• Decentralized IT: IT resources, development, and security are often decentralized across departments, leading to inconsistent policies and preparedness.
• Data Richness: Universities are goldmines of intellectual property and vast PII (students, parents, faculty, staff, vendors).

• Potential Consequences – What’s at Stake:

• Sensitive Data Theft: Compromised dev machines or apps could lead to exfiltration of PII (student records, SSNs, financial aid details).
• Intellectual Property Theft: Research data, unpublished papers, and innovative projects are prime targets, leading to academic and financial loss.
• Service Disruption: RAT-deployed ransomware could cripple student portals, online learning, registration, or admin services, severely impacting operations.
• Reputational Damage: A major breach can tarnish an institution’s reputation, affecting enrollment, funding, and alumni relations.

• Recommended Preparatory Actions – How Universities Can Fight Back:

• Comprehensive Software Inventory/Audit: Immediately audit all software development (internal IT, student-led, research) for compromised Gluestack packages.
• Enforce Strict Dependency Management: Implement policies for version pinning, mandatory dependency scanning, and strong consideration for ignore-scripts by default. Centralize vetting for critical apps.
• Improve Network Segmentation: Isolate development environments from critical admin systems, research data, and student records. Stricter access controls are needed.
• Deploy/Enhance Endpoint Security: Ensure robust EDR is deployed and configured on dev workstations, build servers, and SDLC systems.
• Targeted Security Awareness Training: Specific training for student developers, faculty leading software projects, and IT staff on supply chain risks and secure development.
• Update Incident Response Plans: Address supply chain compromises and RAT infections, including protocols for identifying affected systems/data.

The transient nature of student developers and academic pressure for rapid prototyping can lead to lax security. Decentralized IT means a compromise in one less secure departmental app could, via weak internal segmentation, provide a foothold into central systems. Universities are also research hubs; a supply chain attack could jeopardize years of work or sensitive projects.

1. Healthcare Organizations

• Vulnerability Landscape – Healthcare’s Unique Risks:

• Modern App Development: Healthcare increasingly develops custom mobile/web apps (patient portals, telehealth) using frameworks like React Native.
• Complex IT Ecosystems: Integration of modern apps with legacy systems and a vast array of IoT medical devices (with their own supply chain risks) creates complexity.
• Accelerated Cloud Adoption: Rapid cloud adoption for EHR/EMR, medical imaging, and data analytics is common.
• Extensive Third-Party Vendor Reliance: Heavy dependence on numerous third-party software vendors for clinical, administrative, and financial systems, each a potential vector.

• Potential Consequences – The High Price of a Breach:

• Theft of Protected Health Information (PHI): The most critical risk. Compromised systems or apps could lead to massive PHI breaches, resulting in severe regulatory penalties (HIPAA), lawsuits, and lost patient trust.
• Disruption to Patient Care and Safety: RAT-deployed ransomware could cripple hospital operations (EHR/EMR inaccessible, procedures canceled), directly impacting patient safety.
• Compromise of Medical Device Integrity (Indirect Risk): A compromised dev workstation could potentially be used to inject malicious code into software for medical devices if practices aren’t secure.
• Severe Financial and Reputational Damage: Costs of remediation, fines, legal liabilities, and restoring trust can be astronomical.

• Recommended Preparatory Actions – Healthcare’s Defense Strategy:

• Urgent Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) Review: Immediately conduct/update SBOMs for all internal/external apps (especially patient-facing, clinical support, PHI-handling) to find compromised Gluestack packages.
• Rigorous Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM): Extend TPRM to meticulously scrutinize software development security of all vendors.
• Implement/Enforce Secure SDLC: Mandate secure software development lifecycle (SSDLC) for all in-house/contracted development (compulsory dependency scanning, version pinning, ignore-scripts, code reviews, security testing, especially for PHI apps).
• Strengthen Data-Centric Security/Network Segmentation: Isolate PHI systems/networks. Encrypt PHI at rest/in transit. Strict, role-based access controls. End-to-end encryption is vital.
• Enhanced Monitoring for IoCs: Deploy robust EDR/network monitoring focused on RAT C2 traffic, anomalous behavior on dev systems, and unauthorized PHI access attempts.
• Specialized Incident Response Planning: Tailor IR plans for PHI breaches and clinical operation disruptions (containment, eradication, recovery, notification, legal/regulatory coordination).

Healthcare’s “rush to adopt technology” can outpace cybersecurity implementation. Rapid development, if not security-first, might deprioritize vetting. A supply chain compromise could directly impact patient lives if critical systems fail or data is unavailable. Interconnected IT means a vulnerability in a non-clinical app could, via lateral movement, threaten core clinical systems, underscoring the need for holistic, defense-in-depth security.

VII. Urgency, Real-World Incidents, and Ongoing Threat: This is Happening NOW

The Gluestack NPM supply chain attack demands an urgent response due to its active nature and potential for widespread compromise. This isn’t a fire drill, it’s a five-alarm fire.

• Urgency Level: CRITICAL: This is an active attack campaign. The compromise reportedly began around June 6, 2025, with malicious versions of Gluestack packages published to NPM. Cybersecurity firm Aikido Security reported threat actors publishing new compromised versions even as the discovery unfolded, some “as recently as two hours ago” from BleepingComputer’s initial article on June 7, 2025. The recency and ongoing nature mean many organizations may have unknowingly incorporated malicious code and could be currently exposed.
• Patch Adoption and Attacker Persistence: The discovery timing (reportedly a Friday/Saturday) could delay initial response and patching, widening the attackers’ window. The attackers’ ability to publish multiple compromised versions across 16 packages suggests persistent access to Gluestack’s publishing mechanism, a level of access potentially non-trivial to revoke quickly.
• CVE Status and Severity: As of initial reporting, specific CVEs for this Gluestack campaign weren’t assigned but are highly anticipated. Severity will undoubtedly be High or Critical, based on remote code execution via RAT, potential for full system compromise, and widespread distribution. (Note: CVE-2025-21204, mentioned around the same time, pertains to a Microsoft Windows issue, unrelated to this Gluestack incident).
• Attribution and Links to Other Campaigns: Aikido Security attributed this attack to the same actors responsible for compromising four other NPM packages earlier that week: biatec-avm-gas-station, cputil-node, lfwfinance/sdk, and lfwfinance/sdk-dev. This suggests a persistent threat actor or group specializing in NPM supply chain attacks, likely refining TTPs and reusing infrastructure/malware.
• Lack of Immediate Official Response (at initial reporting): Aikido Security researcher Charlie Eriksen reportedly attempted to contact Gluestack maintainers via GitHub issues without response at the time of BleepingComputer’s initial article. NPM was also contacted, but their process “usually takes multiple days.” Delays in acknowledgment, remediation, and takedown can significantly exacerbate impact. This contrasts with other incidents like the WebScrapingAPI case (rand-user-agent package) where maintainers responded more swiftly.

Attackers escalating over a weekend is a classic tactic, exploiting potentially slower corporate/maintainer response times, giving malware more time to propagate. Attribution to an active NPM ecosystem group implies this isn’t isolated but part of a broader campaign by actors with established C2 and delivery mechanisms.

This incident highlights an ongoing “cat and mouse” game: researchers detect, attackers adapt, and repositories struggle. This underscores the need for more automated, rapid, effective detection and takedown at public repositories.

VIII. Conclusion: Key Recommendations and Fortifying the Software Supply Chain – The Path Forward

The Gluestack NPM supply chain attack is a potent, timely reminder of the pervasive, evolving risks in modern software’s reliance on open-source ecosystems. Active RAT deployment via popular, trusted packages is a serious threat demanding immediate, thorough, decisive action.

Top-Priority Actionable Recommendations:

1. Audit and Identify: Immediately initiate comprehensive scans of all software projects, dev environments, and CI/CD pipelines for compromised Gluestack packages and malicious versions (see Table 1).
2. Remediate and Replace: Upon identification, update to verified clean versions ASAP. If unavailable or non-critical, remove and replace with vetted alternatives if necessary.
3. Monitor and Hunt for Compromise: Proactively search for IoCs on dev workstations/build servers: the specific Windows PATH hijacking (%LOCALAPPDATA%\Programs\Python\Python3127), anomalous network traffic (RAT C2), and other suspicious system activities.
4. Harden Dependency Management Practices: Implement strict version pinning via lockfiles. Routinely use dependency analysis (npm audit, commercial solutions). Crucially, strongly consider configuring NPM with ignore-scripts by default to prevent automatic execution of malicious lifecycle scripts.
5. Educate and Empower Development Teams: Conduct targeted training on supply chain risks, secure coding, and robust dependency management. Foster a security-aware culture where developers scrutinize dependencies and report anomalies.

Long-Term Security Posture Improvement:

Beyond immediate steps, improve overall security against supply chain threats:

• Embrace Zero Trust for Software Dependencies: Move from implicit trust in public repos. Vet, verify, perhaps quarantine external dependencies. Consider private registries.
• Invest in Advanced Threat Detection: Deploy/maintain robust EDR and network monitoring. Crucial for identifying subtle RAT signs or advanced malware bypassing preventative controls.
• Develop and Test Incident Response Plans: Ensure IR plans specifically address software supply chain attacks. Regularly test via tabletop exercises/simulations.
• Advocate for Ecosystem-Wide Improvements: Engage with/support efforts by the open-source community and repository maintainers (like NPM) to enhance security, improve transparency (e.g., wider SBOM adoption), and develop rapid response to malicious package reports.

This incident shows even well-known libraries from established projects (Gluestack is associated with GeekyAnts) can be compromised. Trust in origin/popularity alone is insufficient; it needs continuous verification. Attackers target popular software for wider malware distribution. Reputable orgs can have publishing pipeline or maintainer account security lapses. This reinforces the critical need for consumers to perform due diligence and implement their own defense layers.

The cybersecurity community’s collective response (discovery by Aikido Security, dissemination by BleepingComputer) is crucial. However, ultimate responsibility for identifying exposure and remediating lies with each organization consuming these packages. Attacks like Gluestack NPM will likely continue, possibly driving an industry push for more secure package manager defaults, greater SBOM adoption, and “security scores” for open-source packages. The fight against software supply chain attacks requires persistent vigilance, proactive defense, and swift, effective response.

References

• https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/supply-chain-attack-hits-gluestack-npm-packages-with-960k-weekly-downloads/
• https://geekyants.com/
• https://www.mindinventory.com/blog/top-react-native-ui-component-animation-libraries/
• https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@gluestack-ui/react-native-aria@0.1.7/
• https://www.npmjs.com/package/%40gluestack-ui%2Freact-native-aria
• https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/
• https://www.reversinglabs.com/blog/malicious-npm-patch-delivers-reverse-shell
• https://hoploninfosec.com/pypi-supply-chain-attacks-on-python-npm/
• https://www.aikido.dev/
• https://cycode.com/blog/malicious-code-hidden-in-npm-packages/
• https://www.nodejs-security.com/blog/npm-ignore-scripts-best-practices-as-security-mitigation-for-malicious-packages
• https://business.bofa.com/en-us/content/cyber-attack-protection-for-universities.html
• https://cybelangel.com/healthcare-industry-guide-cyber/
• https://www.censinet.com/perspectives/top-5-healthcare-supply-chain-security-challenges
• https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-shares-script-to-restore-inetpub-folder-you-shouldnt-delete/
• https://www.securityweek.com/popular-scraping-tools-npm-package-compromised-in-supply-chain-attack/
• https://geekyants.com/open-source
• https://www.npmjs.com/package/compromise

Continuing Professional Education (CPE) Credit

Earn CPE credits for reading this Security Blotter article. All Security Blotter articles that come with a Deep Dive section are eligible to earn free CPEs for you, the reader.  Our articles include all issues, incidents, and bulletins to relevant Infosec standards and best practices. We have documented your CPE submission below for your convenience and because we love you (in a platonic way).

📝 Additional Notes

• Other Certifications: This article may qualify for CPE credit with other certifications that recognize professional security education, including CompTIA Security+, GIAC, and vendor-specific programs.

• Disclaimer: Certification holders are responsible for confirming eligibility with their respective certifying bodies. Security Blotter is not affiliated with ISC2, ISACA, EC-Council, or any certification organization and cannot assist with audit documentation or CPE disputes.

• Record Keeping: Save a local copy or PDF of this article, along with your notes or reflections, in case of a future CPE audit.

• Content Removal Notice: Security Blotter reserves the right to update or remove articles at any time.