Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » npm, Inc. » PYPNPM1781245506

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (PYPNPM1781245506)

The details regarding individual company incidents & reports gives you full view from every side.

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-21
Company Score Before Incident216 / 1000
Company Score After Incident195 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERPYPNPM1781245506
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORTyposquatting, Social Engineering, Malicious npm/PyPI Packages, Postinstall Scripts
DATA EXPOSEDSolana wallet keys, AWS credentials,...
INCIDENT DATE31/05/2026
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of npm, Inc.'s Cyber Attack and lateral movement inside company's environment.
  • Overview of affected data sets, including SSNs and PHI, and why they materially increase incident severity.
  • How Rankiteo’s incident engine converts technical details into a normalized incident score.
  • How this cyber incident impacts npm, Inc. Rankiteo cyber scoring and cyber rating.
  • Rankiteo’s MITRE ATT&CK correlation analysis for this incident, with associated confidence level.

Full Incident Analysis Transcript

In this Rankiteo incident briefing, we review the npm, Inc. breach identified under incident ID PYPNPM1781245506.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of npm, Inc.'s information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/npm-inc-, the number of followers: 11914, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 18 employees

After the initial compromise, the video explains how Rankiteo's incident engine converts technical details into a normalized incident score. The incident score before the incident was 216 and after the incident was 195 with a difference of -21 which is could be a good indicator of the severity and impact of the incident.

In the next step of the video, we will analyze in more details the incident and the impact it had on npm, Inc. and their customers.

Solana Developers recently reported "Solana FakeFix Campaign: Supply-Chain Attack Targets Developers via Malicious npm and PyPI Packages", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A supply-chain attack dubbed 'Solana FakeFix' involved 20 trojanized packages (16 on npm and 4 on PyPI) that impersonated legitimate Solana tooling to harvest sensitive credentials such as Solana wallet keys, AWS credentials, SSH keys, .env files, and GitHub tokens.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Developer workstations and CI/CD pipelines, and exposing Solana wallet keys, AWS credentials and SSH keys.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Removal of affected packages from workstations and CI systems and Rotation of exposed credentials, and began remediation that includes Rebuilding compromised CI runners from trusted images and Enforcing stricter registry hygiene.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as The incident highlights the risks of unverified dependencies in development pipelines and the growing sophistication of supply-chain attacks targeting developers through trusted package registries, and recommending next steps like Remove affected packages from workstations, CI systems, and caches, Rotate exposed Solana wallets, SSH keys, and cloud credentials and Rebuild compromised CI runners from trusted images.

Finally, we try to match the incident with the MITRE ATT&CK framework to see if there is any correlation between the incident and the MITRE ATT&CK framework.

The MITRE ATT&CK framework is a knowledge base of techniques and sub-techniques that are used to describe the tactics and procedures of cyber adversaries. It is a powerful tool for understanding the threat landscape and for developing effective defense strategies.

MITRE ATT&CK® Correlation Analysis

Rankiteo's analysis has identified several MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques associated with this incident, each with varying levels of confidence based on available evidence. Under the Initial Access tactic, the analysis identified Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (T1195.002) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including 20 trojanized packages (16 on npm and 4 on PyPI), and supply-chain attack dubbed Solana FakeFix and Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating gitHub issues to promote drop-in replacement for @solana/web3.js. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Command and Scripting Interpreter: JavaScript (T1059.007) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating postinstall scripts to execute malicious JavaScript during installation, Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell (T1059.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating executed PowerShell scripts during installation (thermonuclear campaign), and User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (85%), supported by evidence indicating malicious packages impersonated legitimate Solana tooling. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder (T1547.001) with moderate to high confidence (75%), supported by evidence indicating registry Run-key persistence (thermonuclear campaign). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating harvest sensitive credentials...SSH keys, .env files, GitHub tokens and Unsecured Credentials: Private Keys (T1552.004) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating solana wallet keys, AWS credentials compromised. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating stolen data included Solana wallet keys, AWS credentials, SSH keys and Data from Cloud Storage (T1530) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating aWS credentials targeted for cloud secrets. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Web Service: Bidirectional Communication (T1102.002) with moderate to high confidence (85%), supported by evidence indicating data sent to Telegram C2 channels using hardcoded bot tokens and Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating interactive backdoor commands (/keys, /ssh, /env, /sh). Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration to Telegram C2 channels. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (T1036.005) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating typosquatting...mimicked well-known Solana libraries and Obfuscated Files or Information: Binary Padding (T1027.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating bundled legitimate Solana code with hidden malicious payloads. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Resource Hijacking (T1496) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating tampered with Solana RPC endpoints to drain funds. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (95%)
Phishing: Spearphishing Link (80%)
Execution
Command and Scripting Interpreter: JavaScript (90%)
Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell (80%)
User Execution: Malicious File (85%)
Persistence
Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder (75%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (95%)
Unsecured Credentials: Private Keys (90%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Data from Cloud Storage (70%)
Command and Control
Web Service: Bidirectional Communication (85%)
Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (95%)
Obfuscated Files or Information: Binary Padding (70%)
Impact
Resource Hijacking (70%)

Sources & References