The CTO of Ledger, Charles Guillemet, reported on X a supply chain attack involving widely used NPM packages.The CTO of Ledger, Charles Guillemet, reported on X a supply chain attack involving widely used NPM packages.

NPM under attack: compromised JavaScript packages, crypto addresses hijacked. Warning from Ledger’s CTO: over 1 billion downloads exposed

6 min read
ledger hack npm

The CTO of Ledger, Charles Guillemet, reported on X a supply chain attack involving widely used NPM packages. 

According to a report by CoinDesk, some compromised versions – totaling over 1 billion downloads – include code capable of replacing, “on the fly,” destination addresses in crypto transactions, redirecting funds to wallets controlled by attackers. This scenario aligns with supply chain protection recommendations published by industry organizations like OWASP, which highlight how supply chain compromises can have large-scale impacts.

According to the data collected by our threat intelligence team in the last 24 hours, indicators of compromise have emerged consistent with the technique described in multiple repositories and build pipelines. Analysts we collaborate with also emphasize that the scope of the incident is amplified by transitive dependencies and the size of the registry: the NPM registry hosts over 2 million packages, increasing the likelihood of propagation of a compromised module.

Attack Mechanism: Addresses Changed “On the Fly”

That said, the malicious payload activates both during on-chain operations and at the moment of transaction generation or signing. In practice, the malware intercepts the recipient address and replaces it with one belonging to the malicious actors. The user, seeing an apparently “clean” screen, might not realize that the final transaction sends the funds to a different address – a dynamic also confirmed by The Block. It should be noted that the manipulation is aimed at remaining invisible until the last confirmation step.

Involved packages: numbers, provisional names, and distribution

Initial analyses indicate that the compromise occurred by exploiting the account of a maintainer with access to widely used libraries. Among the names circulated is, for example, the package error-ex – whose official profile can be viewed on npmjs.com – although the official lists are still being updated. The impact is amplified by the cascading effect due to dependencies: a single compromised module can spread to hundreds of projects, thanks to import chains. Indeed, the modular nature of JavaScript code makes it easier for the problem to spread when dependencies are deeply nested.

  • Exposure scale: over 1 billion cumulative downloads of potentially at-risk versions.
  • Vector: publications on NPM through stolen credentials or compromised pipeline.
  • Scope: core libraries used in web projects and wallets.

The official lists of affected packages and versions are partial; it is advisable to monitor NPM advisories and maintainer repositories. However, until definitive communications are made, it remains prudent to consider the entire dependency chain at risk.

Impact on users and businesses

  • Direct crypto theft following the sneaky replacement of the address.
  • Application integrity compromised in dApp, extensions, and desktop/web wallets.
  • Reputational risk for projects that integrate contaminated packages.

What to Do Immediately: Emergency Checklist

For end users (crypto)

  • Prefer wallets that clearly display transaction information (screen and clear signature – Clear Signing), verifying the address and amount on the device before confirming. For practical guidance, see our guide on checking hardware wallets.
  • Avoid blind signing and limit the use of unverified QR codes.
  • Compare the displayed address with a secure copy and use whitelists for frequent recipients.

This precaution is crucial because confirmation on a hardware wallet shows the data that is actually being signed, making any address substitution by the host software evident. In this context, verification on the device’s screen reduces the likelihood of error or upstream manipulation.

For development teams

  • Temporarily suspend automatic updates of critical dependencies.
  • Perform auditing and rollback of the versions published during the suspicious period.
  • Rotate NPM tokens and make 2FA activation mandatory for maintainers and releasers (see here).
  • Enable provenance systems for publications and sign build artifacts.

How to verify if a project is exposed

Quickly identifying suspicious dependencies and installed version ranges is crucial: timely reconnaissance limits the domino effect in pipelines.

# List installed versions and dependency chain

npm ls error-ex

# Check known vulnerabilities and advisories

npm audit –production

npm audit –json > audit.json

# Block non-deterministic updates in CI

npm ci –ignore-scripts

# Set a stricter audit threshold

npm config set audit-level=high

# Check available versions and publication dates

npm view error-ex versions –json

npm view error-ex time –json

In CI contexts, setting ignore-scripts=true helps reduce the risk of executing malicious post-install scripts. That said, it is advisable to establish a reproducible baseline right away to avoid unexpected deviations. For an extended checklist on CI verifications, refer to our page on supply chain best practices.

  • Use a deterministic lockfile (package-lock.json) and deploy with npm ci to ensure reproducibility.
  • Enable 2FA on NPM for publications and critical access, using tokens with limited scopes (automation vs. publish).
  • Implement mandatory code review and use an isolated CI pipeline with artifact signing.
  • Adopt provenance systems, referring to the official documentation on npm package provenance and standards like SLSA.
  • Use scanning tools and controlled updates, such as Dependabot, Renovate, and sigstore/cosign, where applicable.
  • Apply the principle of least privilege for the accounts of maintainers and release bots.

Timeline and Status of Investigations

The alert was made public today, September 8, 2025, and verifications are currently underway. Official advisories and updated lists of compromised packages and versions will be released progressively. Therefore, it is advisable to maintain a cautious approach, suspending non-essential updates until indicators of compromise are consolidated. Pending further feedback, the priority remains to contain exposure and carefully document every change.

Critical Angle: A Chain of Trust Still Fragile

The open source supply chain remains vulnerable when account access and publishing pipelines are not adequately protected. The issue becomes particularly pressing when, in 2025, numerous publications still occur without the systematic adoption of measures such as 2FA, provenance, and rigorous reviews. 

As long as trust is taken for granted, every project will continue to be exposed to the risk generated by others. Yet, even small improvements in processes can significantly reduce the attack surface.

The Point

This episode highlights how critical supply chain security is in open-source software. As long as investigations are ongoing, the priority will be to limit attack surfaces, carefully verify transaction data on screen, and consolidate publishing processes through the adoption of 2FA, lockfile, and provenance systems. 

The transparency of advisories, as noted by numerous experts, will be crucial in measuring the real impact and restoring trust in the ecosystem. In this context, adherence to best practices remains the only immediate safeguard.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

The post Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On the lookout for a Sector – Tech fund? Starting with Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX – Free Report) should not be a possibility at this time. PGTAX possesses a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of 4 (Sell), which is based on various forecasting factors like size, cost, and past performance. Objective We note that PGTAX is a Sector – Tech option, and this area is loaded with many options. Found in a wide number of industries such as semiconductors, software, internet, and networking, tech companies are everywhere. Thus, Sector – Tech mutual funds that invest in technology let investors own a stake in a notoriously volatile sector, but with a much more diversified approach. History of fund/manager Putnam Funds is based in Canton, MA, and is the manager of PGTAX. The Putnam Global Technology A made its debut in January of 2009 and PGTAX has managed to accumulate roughly $650.01 million in assets, as of the most recently available information. The fund is currently managed by Di Yao who has been in charge of the fund since December of 2012. Performance Obviously, what investors are looking for in these funds is strong performance relative to their peers. PGTAX has a 5-year annualized total return of 14.46%, and is in the middle third among its category peers. But if you are looking for a shorter time frame, it is also worth looking at its 3-year annualized total return of 27.02%, which places it in the middle third during this time-frame. It is important to note that the product’s returns may not reflect all its expenses. Any fees not reflected would lower the returns. Total returns do not reflect the fund’s [%] sale charge. If sales charges were included, total returns would have been lower. When looking at a fund’s performance, it…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 04:05
“Vibes Should Match Substance”: Vitalik on Fake Ethereum Connections

“Vibes Should Match Substance”: Vitalik on Fake Ethereum Connections

Vitalik Buterin criticized L2s that use optimistic bridges without adding meaningful technical innovation. Ethereum’s base layer is scaling, reducing the need for
Share
LiveBitcoinNews2026/02/06 11:30
Why Bitcoin Crashed Below $69,000 — Causes & Outlook

Why Bitcoin Crashed Below $69,000 — Causes & Outlook

Cryptsy - Latest Cryptocurrency News and Predictions Cryptsy - Latest Cryptocurrency News and Predictions - Experts in Crypto Casinos Bitcoin crash explained:
Share
Cryptsy2026/02/06 11:20