Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 2.37% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceMicrosoft · Package Manager Configurations
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available<p>Depending on configuration of various package managers it is possible for an attacker to insert a malicious package into a package manager's repository which can be retrieved and used during development, build, and release processes. This insertion could lead to remote code execution. We believe this vulnerability affects multiple package managers across multiple languages, including but not limited to: Python/pip, .NET/NuGet, Java/Maven, JavaScript/npm.</p> <p><strong>Attack scenarios</strong></p> <p>An attacker could take advantage of this ecosystem-wide issue to cause harm in a variety of ways. The original attack scenarios were discovered by Alex Birsan and are detailed in their whitepaper, <a href="https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60fec610">Dependency Confusion: How I Hacked Into Apple, Microsoft and Dozens of Other Companies</a>.</p> <ul> <li><p>With basic knowledge of the target ecosystems, an attacker could create an empty shell for a package and insert malicious code in the install scripts, give it a high version, and publish it to the public repository. Vulnerable victim machines will download the higher version of the package between the public and private repositories and attempt to install it. Due to code incompatibility it will probably error out upon import or upon compilation, making it easier to detect; however the attacker would have gained code execution by that point.</p> </li> <li><p>An advanced attacker with some inside knowledge of the target could take a copy of a working package, insert the malicious code (in the package itself or in the install), and then publish it to a public repository. The package will likely install and import correctly, granting the attacker an initial foothold and persistence.</p> </li> </ul> <p>These two methods could affect target organizations at any of these various levels:</p> <ul> <li>Developer machines</li> <li>An entire team if the configuration to import the malicious package is uploaded to a code repository</li> <li>Continuous integration pipelines if they pull the malicious packages during the build, test, and/or deploy stages</li> <li>Customers, download servers, production services if the malicious code has not been detected</li> </ul> <p>This remote code execution vulnerability can only be addressed by reconfiguring installation tools and workflows, and not by correcting anything in the package repositories themselves. See the <strong>FAQ</strong> section of this CVE for configuration guidance.</p>
<p>Depending on configuration of various package managers it is possible for an attacker to insert a malicious package into a package manager's repository which can be retrieved and used during development, build, and release processes. This insertion could lead to remote code execution. We believe this vulnerability affects multiple package managers across multiple languages, including but not limited to: Python/pip, .NET/NuGet, Java/Maven, JavaScript/npm.</p> <p><strong>Attack scenarios</strong></p> <p>An attacker could take advantage of this ecosystem-wide issue to cause harm in a variety of ways. The original attack scenarios were discovered by Alex Birsan and are detailed in their whitepaper, <a href="https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60fec610">Dependency Confusion: How I Hacked Into Apple, Microsoft and Dozens of Other Companies</a>.</p> <ul> <li><p>With basic knowledge of the target ecosystems, an attacker could create an empty shell for a package and insert malicious code in the install scripts, give it a high version, and publish it to the public repository. Vulnerable victim machines will download the higher version of the package between the public and private repositories and attempt to install it. Due to code incompatibility it will probably error out upon import or upon compilation, making it easier to detect; however the attacker would have gained code execution by that point.</p> </li> <li><p>An advanced attacker with some inside knowledge of the target could take a copy of a working package, insert the malicious code (in the package itself or in the install), and then publish it to a public repository. The package will likely install and import correctly, granting the attacker an initial foothold and persistence.</p> </li> </ul> <p>These two methods could affect target organizations at any of these various levels:</p> <ul> <li>Developer machines</li> <li>An entire team if the configuration to import the malicious package is uploaded to a code repository</li> <li>Continuous integration pipelines if they pull the malicious packages during the build, test, and/or deploy stages</li> <li>Customers, download servers, production services if the malicious code has not been detected</li> </ul> <p>This remote code execution vulnerability can only be addressed by reconfiguring installation tools and workflows, and not by correcting anything in the package repositories themselves. See the <strong>FAQ</strong> section of this CVE for configuration guidance.</p>
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
<p>Depending on configuration of various package managers it is possible for an attacker to insert a malicious package into a package manager's repository which can be retrieved and used during development, build, and release processes. This insertion could lead to remote code execution. We believe this vulnerability affects multiple package managers across multiple languages, including but not limited to: Python/pip, .NET/NuGet, Java/Maven, JavaScript/npm.</p> <p><strong>Attack scenarios</strong></p> <p>An attacker could take advantage of this ecosystem-wide issue to cause harm in a variety of ways. The original attack scenarios were discovered by Alex Birsan and are detailed in their whitepaper, <a href="https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60fec610">Dependency Confusion: How I Hacked Into Apple, Microsoft and Dozens of Other Companies</a>.</p> <ul> <li><p>With basic knowledge of the target ecosystems, an attacker could create an empty shell for a package and insert malicious code in the install scripts, give it a high version, and publish it to the public repository. Vulnerable victim machines will download the higher version of the package between the public and private repositories and attempt to install it. Due to code incompatibility it will probably error out upon import or upon compilation, making it easier to detect; however the attacker would have gained code execution by that point.</p> </li> <li><p>An advanced attacker with some inside knowledge of the target could take a copy of a working package, insert the malicious code (in the package itself or in the install), and then publish it to a public repository. The package will likely install and import correctly, granting the attacker an initial foothold and persistence.</p> </li> </ul> <p>These two methods could affect target organizations at any of these various levels:</p> <ul> <li>Developer machines</li> <li>An entire team if the configuration to import the malicious package is uploaded to a code repository</li> <li>Continuous integration pipelines if they pull the malicious packages during the build, test, and/or deploy stages</li> <li>Customers, download servers, production services if the malicious code has not been detected</li> </ul> <p>This remote code execution vulnerability can only be addressed by reconfiguring installation tools and workflows, and not by correcting anything in the package repositories themselves. See the <strong>FAQ</strong> section of this CVE for configuration guidance.</p>
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H/E:P/RL:O/RC:CCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 25 Feb 2021 · Last source change 3 Aug 2024, 19:21 UTC · CWE not yet assigned
Missing structured fields: CWE classification. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.