Urgent.News

What's breaking now, across thousands of outlets.

Tech

Worm armed 42 GitHub repos by hiding a payload too big to fail

Payload blobs measuring 12.9 to 13.7 MB were large enough to evade GitHub code search

Worm armed 42 GitHub repos by hiding a payload too big to fail

A new Miasma-family npm worm, initially thought to be a harmless test, secretly infected 42 GitHub repositories belonging to real developers and organizations. This malicious campaign, dubbed testmetest, was first identified by SafeDep, an open-source supply chain security firm, who discovered 18 packages tied to the same operator between October 19 and October 25.

The malware is self-replicating, steals credentials, and installs a wiper that deletes the victim's home directory when the stolen GitHub token is revoked. The worm shares code with a previous Miasma Phantom Gyp worm and adds Mini Shai-Hulud's token-revocation wiper. Despite SafeDep not finding any compromised third-party packages or victims as of October 22, JFrog researchers later revealed that the operator had indeed armed real repositories.

The payload used by the attackers was too large to be detected by GitHub's search and API paths, making it nearly invisible to automated scanners. The malware injects execution hooks for AI coding assistants and development tools, modifies repositories and CI configurations, and spreads through npm packages. It also uses a compiled native add-on to decrypt and launch a separate payload.

The operator's base was a GitHub account called CementBeetleSteeple, which hosted 17 campaign repositories. This supply chain security incident is linked to a previous CVE-2026-41940, an authentication bypass affecting cPanel and WHM, which was added to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog by CISA in April.

Written by urgent.news from The Register Science's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.

This story

This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.

Read the original at theregister.com →

More in Tech

Debug Log #10: A Post Didn't Publish On Schedule, and I Can't Fully Explain Why

One post out of thirty didn't go out on schedule, and the exit code it left behind means "something killed this process," not "something went wrong inside it." I found this by accident, checking in on…

  • One scheduled post failed to publish on time, 36 hours late
  • Machine was asleep or offline at designated publishing time
  • Windows Task Scheduler log disabled, cause of termination unclear

What Did They Have to Check or Redo?

An AI-drafted update, summary or email can cost the person who gets it time you do not see. Ask them one question, then change one thing. Your AI drafted the weekly update in three minutes.

  • Recipients spend nearly two hours per incident fixing AI-generated update issues.
  • 50% view the sender as less capable after workslop.
  • Asking recipients to report what they had to check or redo can improve the process.

More from Monday 26 October →