Miasma Worm Compromises 73 Microsoft GitHub Repositories


Miasma Worm Compromises 73 Microsoft GitHub Repositories

Pierluigi Paganini
June 09, 2026

The Miasma worm compromised 73 Microsoft GitHub repos, spreading via AI coding tools and stealing cloud credentials from developers and CI/CD systems.

A self-replicating worm called Miasma has compromised 73 Microsoft GitHub repositories and forced GitHub staff to disable them. The affected repos include core Azure infrastructure like azure-functions-host and the entire Durable Task family across .NET, Go, Java, JavaScript, MSSQL, and Python. This is Microsoft’s second known breach in weeks involving the same family of malware, which raises an uncomfortable question: did they fully clean up the first one, or did the attackers simply wait?

Miasma is an evolved variant of Mini Shai-Hulud, a worm whose source code was open-sourced by the cybercrime group TeamPCP. The group’s naming has shifted from Dune references to Greek mythology this time, with repo descriptions like “Miasma: The Spreading Blight” and “Hades: The End for the Damned.” Branding aside, the operation started at Red Hat: attackers compromised a Red Hat employee’s GitHub account and pushed unreviewed orphan commits to internal repos, injecting a minimal workflow that requested GitHub’s OIDC tokens. That workflow then published 32 malicious package versions to the npm registry.

The detail that makes this particularly hard to catch is what those OIDC tokens provided.

“The worm initially struck the @redhat-cloud-services npm namespace by compromising a Red Hat employee’s GitHub account. By pushing unreviewed orphan commits to internal repos, the threat actors injected a minimal workflow that requested GitHub’s OIDC tokens.” reads the report published by Cloudsmith. “This registry poisoning workflow in early June executed an obfuscated payload that published 32 malicious package versions to the npm registry. Crucially, because it used legitimate OIDC tokens, the malicious releases carried valid SLSA provenance attestations. To standard registry scanners, the malicious updates were entirely indistinguishable from legitimate, routine code updates.”

Supply chain security frameworks like SLSA are designed to verify that code was built by who it claims to have been built by. They’re not designed to detect a legitimate maintainer whose credentials have been stolen. That’s a meaningful distinction when the threat model involves compromised humans rather than compromised build systems.

From Red Hat’s npm namespace, Miasma moved to attacking source repositories directly, skipping the package registry entirely for some targets and planting payload runners straight into public repos. The delivery mechanism is what makes this particularly sharp for the current moment in software development.

“The delivery approach here was as brilliant as it was terrifying – it was designed to weaponize the AI coding tools.” continues the report. “The dropper executes automatically when an infected repository is cloned and opened within these popular developer tools:”

Every developer who cloned an infected repo and opened it in one of those tools ran the malware without knowing it. AI coding tools have become a standard part of how engineers work, which makes them an efficient delivery mechanism for anyone who can get into an upstream repo.

The payload itself adapted to evade detection in two ways. First, Miasma generates a uniquely encrypted payload for each individual infection, which means hash-based indicators of compromise are useless: the file signature changes with every package version, so blocklists built from known-bad hashes simply don’t work. Second, the worm went beyond the credential scraping of earlier Mini Shai-Hulud variants.

“While previous iterations of the Mini Shai-Hulud malware have focused purely on local secret scraping, the Miasma worm appears to have advanced data collectors specifically engineered for cloud identities in GCP and Azure.” states the report. “It attempts to harvest every cloud identity the infected developer machine and CI/CD runners have access to, proving a clear intent from the threat actors to leve”

Stealing a developer’s local secrets is bad. Harvesting cloud credentials from every CI/CD runner that touched the infected code is a different order of problem.

The fact that Durable Task was compromised a month earlier and then hit again in this campaign matters. Security researchers at OpenSourceMalware have called the latest incident a “re-compromise,” which implies either the original credentials were never rotated, or the attackers retained a foothold that Microsoft’s remediation didn’t fully reach. Microsoft spokesperson Ben Hope told TechCrunch the company “temporarily removed some repositories as we investigated potential malicious content,” that some have been restored after review, and that a small number of customers who pulled content from affected repositories have been notified. The number of affected customers wasn’t disclosed.

“If durabletask sounds familiar, it should. This is a re-compromise. On May 19, three malicious versions (1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3) of the durabletask PyPI package — Microsoft’s official Azure Durable Task SDK, pulling roughly 417,000 downloads a month — were pushed straight to PyPI inside a 35-minute window, with no matching tags, releases, or CI runs in the GitHub repo. Wiz, Endor Labs, and StepSecurity all traced it back to stolen GitHub Actions secrets and tied it to TeamPCP. The packages were yanked within hours.” states OpenSourceMalware. “A month later, not only is Azure/durabletask gone — so is every sibling repo in the Durable Task ecosystem, sitting one org over in microsoft: the .NET, Go, Java, JS, MSSQL, Netherite, and protobuf implementations, plus the Durable Functions monitor. When the repo at the root of last month’s compromise is the hub of this month’s takedown, that is not a coincidence — that is the same wound reopening. Whoever held those credentials in May plausibly never fully lost them.”

Cloudsmith advises organizations using Azure or Red Hat environments to treat this campaign as a potential active security incident. Any GitHub tokens, SSH keys, CI/CD signing keys, and cloud credentials that may have been exposed should be rotated immediately. Security teams should also check build systems for suspicious repositories and unexpected processes running through tools such as VS Code or AI coding assistants. The case highlights that even software packages distributed through trusted public registries can be malicious, despite appearing legitimate and carrying valid provenance information.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, newsletter)







Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


After a four-year wait, Euphoria has returned to television, but season 3 is providing a major shake-up to its formula. Not only have four years passed in the real world, but the in-universe tale has moved forward, taking the cast of the Zendaya-led teen drama out of high school and into the trials of young adulthood. As such, the series faces a new challenge of whether it can keep up its momentum with this drastic new status quo.

While it remains to be seen how Euphoria can move past its teen drama roots, it’s an excellent time to dive into the celebrated and controversial series Skins. Let’s see how it handled the test of time, how it outshines Euphoria, and how it fell into similar trappings.

What is Skins?

Skins broke the teen drama mold

Created by Bryan Elsley and Jamie Brittain, Skins is Channel 4’s British drama series that premiered in 2007. Initially, the series first honed in on a group of teens enjoying their youth in the city of Bristol, caught between youthful revolt, partying, and the pressures of adulthood. The show walked a fine line between relatable comedy and serious drama. This combination of genres attracted a following.

Skins aired for seven seasons between 2007 and 2013, running for a final total of 61 episodes. The series was praised by critics and prominent industry voices—including Doctor Who’s Russell T. Davies and Black Mirror’s Charlie Brooker—for breaking the mold of what a teen drama could be. Even over a decade after its final episodes aired, its characters are still fondly remembered, finding new life through a thriving online fandom.


skins


Release Date

2007 – 2013-00-00

Network

E4

Showrunner

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley

Writers

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley



Skins was celebrated as a realistic depiction of teen life

The series was willing to show the highs and lows

Skins is part of a unique generation of teen-focused media released in the mid-2000s and 2010s. The series wasn’t a glossy depiction of youth culture; its cast comprised young people stumbling through life, making mistakes, or intentionally causing trouble. They were allowed to be flawed and even unlikable, which would resonate with the young target demographic at the time, who would find their struggles relatable.

With this clear recognition of what its audience was looking for, Skins became acclaimed for its willingness to dive into taboo and controversial subjects at the time. Alongside several storylines tackling queer themes, the series dared to depict a generation in conflict with those who came before, with the show’s adults either being unintentionally neglectful or outright malicious towards the young cast. As Skins was exploring teens transitioning between youth and adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age story that is willing to show every aspect these changes bring, for better or worse.

Skins spawned several stars

Several actors are now household names

The cast of Skins in a photo. Credit: Warner Home Video

While Euphoria can be credited with being the breakout show for several actors, Skins had no shortage of faces who would dominate both the big screen and television. Seasons 1 and 2’s cast not only featured Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, Joe Dempsie, and Hannah Murray long before they would star in highly celebrated projects such as Superman, The Green Knight, and Game of Thrones.

The show also featured small appearances by Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya, who would pen several episodes for the series. Season 2 would continue to feature future stars in their breakout roles, such as 28 Years Later’s Jack O’Connell as the brash and loud hooligan Cook and The Gentlemen’s Kaya Scodelario, who transformed her season 1 character Effy Stonem into a compelling lead.

When paired with a supporting cast of several talented, established mainstays on British television, it is understandable why Skins provided a perfect chance to give these future stars the perfect breakout roles. Not only were the characters able to tap into the youthful rebelliousness and culture of the time in a way that made it highly relatable to audiences, but the stars behind these characters were able to show their skills against their older costars and prove themselves. As such, it is unsurprising that Skins‘ young leads would go on to bigger projects that would be recognized around the globe.

Skins avoided Euphoria’s production issue

Skins’s major cast shake-ups helped the series continue

The skins show 3. Credit: Warner Home Video

However, with a young cast who would gradually grow out of their roles, Skins was limited in the stories that it could tell while the audiences could still plausibly believe that the actors were the same age as their characters. While finding a cast who could believably play younger characters is hardly a new predicament, it is something that has become more scrutinized as time goes on. Even Euphoria has had to grapple with this issue, with season 3 featuring a time jump of several years to account for its cast outgrowing their high school roles in the gap between each season’s production.

Arguably, out of most teen dramas, Skins found the ideal way to handle this issue. Rather than following a single group of teens across seven seasons, the first six seasons can be divided into three distinct eras with their own unique casts. The final season explored what happened to several fan-favorite characters following their education. Not only did this compromise avoid any potential issues due to the cast’s ages, but it also broadened the scope of the kinds of stories that could be told due to its revolving cast.

Skins wasn’t without its own controversies

A young cast brought several difficulties

That’s not to say that Skins didn’t attract criticism. Due to the young ages of the cast at the time of filming and the situations they were placed in, the series understandably and rightfully received heavy scrutiny of how they were treated, alongside discussions of whether the series was guilty of glorifying unhealthy habits. These critiques weren’t limited to viewers and professional critics either, as several lead actors such as Scodalerio, April Pearson, and Dakota Blue Richards have spoken about their time on set through social media.

While Skins can be celebrated for its willingness to depict a gritty and relatable portrayal of growing up in the early 2000’s, it is important to acknowledge where things could have been handled better, especially as more of its stars open up about their time making the show. It is also important to acknowledge how these revelations can affect the show’s perception, either by those who grew up with the show or newcomers looking in. If you feel uncomfortable by the events depicted onscreen or feel sour towards the show due to the cast’s treatment, it may be best to avoid it.​​​​​​​

Where to stream Skins

The series has a lasting legacy

Effy in Skins. Credit: Channel 4

For better and worse, Skins represents a major moment in British television history. Between casting future stars in their breakout roles and giving audiences an unflinching depiction of teen life, the series is worth revisiting for these aspects. Furthermore, if you are familiar with Euphoria, it is also interesting to go into the series and compare how each show tackles similar themes, not only due to how times have changed between series but also through how a British cultural lens vs. a US lens works.


Furthermore, for US viewers, Skins is currently readily available to stream. The full series is available to Hulu subscribers, as well as those who pay for the Disney+ bundles that feature the service. If your excitement for Euphoria has been dimmed by the lengthy wait between seasons or you are just looking for an interesting show to compare it to, Skins still stands as the best option available.

hulu-poster.jpg

Subscription with ads

Yes, $10/month

Live TV

Yes, various plans available




Source link