OpenAI says no user data was touched in the TanStack npm worm


Two corporate laptops, some credential material, and a forced macOS app update. The interesting part is how the malicious packages got published in the first place: not by a stolen npm password, but by TanStack’s own legitimate release pipeline, after the attacker code took over the runner mid-build.


OpenAI said on Wednesday that it found no evidence of user data being accessed, products being compromised, or its software being altered after a supply-chain compromise of the TanStack npm packages earlier this week.

Two employee devices in OpenAI’s corporate environment were affected, the company said in a notice published on its website. Limited credential material was exfiltrated from internal code repositories. Passwords and API keys were not.

The interesting part is how the malicious packages got there. On 11 May, between 19:20 and 19:26 UTC, 84 malicious artefacts were published across 42 packages in the @tanstack namespace, including @tanstack/react-router, which alone pulls more than 12.7 million weekly downloads.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

They were not uploaded by an attacker who had phished an npm credential. They were uploaded by TanStack’s own legitimate release pipeline, using its trusted OIDC identity, after an attacker-controlled fork hijacked the GitHub Actions runner mid-workflow and exfiltrated the OIDC token directly from the runner’s process memory.

TanStack’s maintainer Tanner Linsley described it, accurately, as the first documented npm worm in history that ships with a valid signed certificate of authenticity.

The campaign has a name. Mini Shai-Hulud, a self-replicating descendant of the worm that first hit the npm registry in September 2025, has now compromised more than 170 packages across npm and PyPI, including releases from Mistral AI, UiPath, OpenSearch, and Guardrails AI.

The cumulative download count of the affected packages, per OX Security, is over 518 million. Microsoft Security Research is tracking it as the same campaign that ran in November and December 2025 under the Shai-Hulud 2.0 banner.

OpenAI’s exposure runs through this fan-out. The company has not said which TanStack package its developers were pulling from when the compromise happened, only that the affected machines have been isolated and that the credential rotation is underway.

Code-deployment workflows have been temporarily restricted. Code-signing certificates are being rotated, which is why macOS users of the ChatGPT desktop app are seeing forced application updates this week.

OpenAI’s framing of the incident is narrow on purpose. The company is drawing a careful line between its corporate engineering environment, where the breach happened, and its product surface, where it says nothing was touched.

That line is the difference between a workplace IT incident and a customer-facing security event, and OpenAI clearly does not want this read as the second.

The wider picture is harder to read calmly. Mini Shai-Hulud chained three GitHub Actions vulnerabilities (a pull_request_target trigger, cache poisoning, and OIDC token extraction from runner memory) to bypass every layer of npm publishing security at once.

Trusted publishing, the system designed to replace stealable npm tokens with short-lived OIDC ones, is what the attacker abused. The defence assumed the runner was trustworthy. The attacker made it not.

For OpenAI specifically, the takeaway is short. Two laptops, some credential material, a forced app update, no customer data, no product compromise. For everyone else publishing or consuming npm packages, the takeaway is longer.

The TeamPCPa-ttributed campaign behind Mini Shai-Hulud has also been linked to the compromise of Aqua Security’s Trivy scanner in March and the Bitwarden CLI npm package in April. There is no indication it has run out of targets.



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