本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

detecting-typosquatting-packages-in-npm-pypi

Detects typosquatting attacks in npm and PyPI package registries by analyzing package name similarity using Levenshtein distance and other string metrics, examining publish date heuristics to identify recently created packages mimicking established ones, and flagging download count anomalies where suspicious packages have disproportionately low usage compared to their legitimate targets. The analyst queries the PyPI JSON API and npm registry API to gather package metadata for automated comparison. Activates for requests involving package typosquatting detection, dependency confusion analysis, malicious package identification, or software supply chain threat hunting in package registries.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(4)

  • SKILL.md13.0 KB
  • LICENSE11.0 KB
  • references/api-reference.md5.5 KB
  • scripts/agent.py19.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Detecting Typosquatting Packages in npm and PyPI

When to Use

  • Auditing project dependencies to identify packages whose names are suspiciously similar to popular libraries
  • Proactively scanning package registries for newly published packages that may be typosquats of your organization's packages
  • Investigating a suspected supply chain compromise where a developer installed a misspelled package name
  • Building automated monitoring that alerts when new packages appear with names close to critical dependencies
  • Assessing the risk profile of unfamiliar packages before adding them to a project's dependency tree

Do not use as the sole determination of malicious intent; name similarity alone does not prove a package is malicious. Do not use for bulk automated takedown requests without manual review of flagged packages. Do not use against private registries without authorization.

Prerequisites

  • Python 3.9+ with requests and python-Levenshtein (or rapidfuzz) packages installed
  • Network access to https://pypi.org/pypi/<package>/json (PyPI JSON API) and https://registry.npmjs.org/<package> (npm registry API)
  • A list of popular or critical packages to monitor (e.g., top 1000 PyPI packages, organization's dependency list)
  • Understanding of common typosquatting patterns: character omission, transposition, insertion, substitution, and hyphen/underscore manipulation

Workflow

Step 1: Build the Target Package Watchlist

Establish the set of legitimate packages to monitor for typosquats:

  • Extract project dependencies: Parse requirements.txt, Pipfile.lock, package.json, or package-lock.json to extract all direct and transitive dependency names
  • Include popular packages: Supplement with high-value targets from the top 1000 PyPI downloads (available from https://hugovk.github.io/top-pypi-packages/) or top npm packages by download count
  • Add organization packages: Include any packages published by your organization that attackers might target with typosquats to intercept internal installations
  • Normalize names: PyPI treats hyphens, underscores, and periods as equivalent (PEP 503 normalization: re.sub(r"[-_.]+", "-", name).lower()). npm package names are case-sensitive but scoped packages use @scope/name format. Normalize before comparison.

Step 2: Generate Candidate Typosquat Names

Produce potential typosquat variants for each target package:

  • Character omission: Remove each character one at a time (requests -> rquests, requets, reqests)
  • Character transposition: Swap adjacent characters (requests -> erquests, rqeuests, reques ts)
  • Character substitution: Replace characters with keyboard-adjacent keys using a QWERTY distance map (requests -> rrquests, requesta)
  • Character insertion: Insert common characters at each position (requests -> rrequests, reqquests)
  • Separator manipulation: For hyphenated names, try removing, doubling, or replacing separators (my-package -> mypackage, my--package, my_package)
  • Common prefix/suffix attacks: Prepend or append common strings (python-requests, requests-python, requests2, requests-lib)

Step 3: Query Registry APIs for Candidate Packages

Check whether generated candidate names actually exist in the registry:

  • PyPI JSON API: Send GET https://pypi.org/pypi/<candidate>/json for each candidate. A 200 response means the package exists; 404 means it does not. Extract from the response: info.name, info.version, info.author, info.summary, info.home_page, info.project_urls, and releases (keyed by version with upload_time_iso_8601 timestamps).
  • npm registry API: Send GET https://registry.npmjs.org/<candidate> with Accept: application/json. Extract: name, description, dist-tags.latest, time.created, time.modified, maintainers, and versions.
  • Rate limiting: PyPI has no published rate limits but respect reasonable request rates (1-2 requests/second). npm registry returns 429 when rate limited; implement exponential backoff.
  • Batch optimization: For large candidate lists, parallelize requests with connection pooling (requests.Session) and limit concurrency to avoid triggering abuse protections.

Step 4: Analyze Package Metadata for Suspicion Signals

Score each existing candidate package against multiple heuristic signals:

  • Levenshtein distance: Calculate the edit distance between the candidate name and the target. Packages with distance 1-2 from a popular package are high-priority suspects. Historical analysis shows 18 of 40 known typosquats had Levenshtein distance of 2 or less from their targets.
  • Publish date recency: Compare the candidate's first publish date against the target's. A package created years after its near-namesake is more suspicious. Flag packages created within the last 90 days that are similar to packages published years ago.
  • Download count disparity: Compare weekly downloads. Legitimate similarly-named packages typically have comparable or explainable download counts. A package with 50 downloads versus its near-namesake with 5 million downloads is suspicious. PyPI download stats are available via BigQuery (pypistats.org/api/); npm provides download counts at https://api.npmjs.org/downloads/point/last-week/<package>.
  • Author and maintainer analysis: Check if the candidate package author matches the legitimate package author. Different authors for near-identical names increase suspicion.
  • Description similarity: Compare package descriptions. Typosquats frequently copy or closely paraphrase the target package description to appear legitimate.
  • Version count: Legitimate packages typically have many versions over time. A package with only 1-2 versions and a name similar to a popular package is suspicious.
  • Repository URL analysis: Check if the candidate links to the same repository as the target (likely legitimate fork/mirror) or has no repository URL (suspicious).

Step 5: Score, Rank, and Report Findings

Combine signals into a composite risk score and generate an actionable report:

  • Weighted scoring: Assign weights to each signal. Example: Levenshtein distance 1 = 40 points, Levenshtein distance 2 = 25 points, created < 90 days ago = 15 points, download ratio < 0.001 = 15 points, different author = 10 points, single version = 5 points. Total score out of 100.
  • Threshold classification: Score >= 70: HIGH risk (likely typosquat), 40-69: MEDIUM risk (requires manual review), < 40: LOW risk (likely legitimate)
  • Generate report: For each flagged package, include the target it mimics, all signal values, the composite score, direct links to both packages on the registry, and a recommendation (block, investigate, or allow)
  • Actionable output: Produce a blocklist of flagged package names that can be imported into package manager deny-lists, CI/CD policy engines, or artifact repository proxy rules

Key Concepts

TermDefinition
TyposquattingRegistering a package name that closely resembles a popular package, exploiting common typos to trick developers into installing malicious code
Levenshtein DistanceThe minimum number of single-character edits (insertions, deletions, substitutions) required to transform one string into another; the primary metric for measuring name similarity
Dependency ConfusionA broader supply chain attack where attackers publish malicious packages to public registries with names matching private internal packages, exploiting package manager resolution order
PEP 503 NormalizationThe Python packaging specification that treats hyphens, underscores, and periods as equivalent in package names, meaning my-package, my_package, and my.package resolve to the same package
QWERTY DistanceA keyboard-layout-aware distance metric measuring how far apart two keys are on a standard keyboard, used to detect substitutions from adjacent key mistyping
CombosquattingA variant of typosquatting where attackers prepend or append common words to a package name (e.g., requests-security, python-requests)
StarJackingAn attack where a typosquat package links its repository URL to the legitimate package's GitHub repository to inflate apparent credibility

Tools & Systems

  • PyPI JSON API: REST API at https://pypi.org/pypi/<package>/json returning package metadata including name, author, versions, upload timestamps, and project URLs
  • npm Registry API: REST API at https://registry.npmjs.org/<package> returning package metadata including maintainers, version history, creation timestamps, and distribution info
  • python-Levenshtein / rapidfuzz: Python libraries for fast string distance computation, supporting Levenshtein, Damerau-Levenshtein, Jaro-Winkler, and other similarity metrics
  • pypistats.org API: Provides download statistics for PyPI packages, enabling download count comparison between suspected typosquats and their targets
  • npm download counts API: Endpoint at https://api.npmjs.org/downloads/point/<period>/<package> providing download statistics for npm packages

Common Scenarios

Scenario: Auditing a Python Project for Typosquatted Dependencies

Context: A security team discovers that a developer's workstation was compromised after installing a Python package. The incident response team needs to audit all project dependencies for potential typosquats and establish ongoing monitoring.

Approach:

  1. Parse requirements.txt and Pipfile.lock to extract all 87 direct and transitive dependencies
  2. Generate typosquat candidates for each dependency using character omission, transposition, substitution, and separator manipulation, producing approximately 2,400 candidate names
  3. Query the PyPI JSON API for each candidate, finding 34 that actually exist as published packages
  4. Score each existing candidate: 3 packages score above 70 (HIGH risk) with Levenshtein distance 1, created within the last 60 days, single version, and fewer than 100 downloads
  5. Manual review confirms 2 of the 3 are malicious typosquats containing obfuscated code that exfiltrates environment variables during installation
  6. Block the malicious packages in the organization's artifact proxy, report to PyPI for takedown via security@pypi.org, and add all 87 dependencies to the ongoing monitoring watchlist
  7. Implement the detection agent as a scheduled CI job that runs weekly and alerts on new HIGH-risk findings

Pitfalls:

  • Not normalizing PyPI package names per PEP 503 before comparison, causing missed matches between hyphenated and underscored variants
  • Setting the Levenshtein distance threshold too low (only 1) and missing typosquats at distance 2 that use double substitutions
  • Relying solely on name similarity without checking metadata signals, leading to high false positive rates on legitimately similar package names
  • Not accounting for npm scoped packages (@scope/name) which have different naming rules than unscoped packages
  • Querying the registries too aggressively and getting rate-limited or IP-blocked

Output Format

## Typosquatting Detection Report

**Scan Date**: 2026-03-19
**Registry**: PyPI
**Packages Monitored**: 87
**Candidates Generated**: 2,412
**Candidates Found in Registry**: 34
**Flagged as Suspicious**: 5

### HIGH Risk (Score >= 70)

| Suspect Package | Target Package | Levenshtein | Created | Downloads | Score |
|----------------|---------------|-------------|---------|-----------|-------|
| reqeusts       | requests      | 1           | 2026-02-28 | 43     | 92    |
| requsets       | requests      | 1           | 2026-03-01 | 12     | 88    |
| numpyy         | numpy         | 1           | 2026-01-15 | 67     | 78    |

### Recommendation
- BLOCK: reqeusts, requsets, numpyy (add to artifact proxy deny-list)
- REPORT: Submit malware reports to security@pypi.org with package names and evidence
- MONITOR: Continue weekly scans for the full dependency watchlist

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Extract and decrypt Windows DPAPI-protected secrets (Credential Manager, browser logins/cookies, Wi-Fi credentials, KeePass keys) online or offline using SharpDPAPI, SharpChrome, Mimikatz, or Impacket's dpapi.py, including domain-wide decryption via the DPAPI backup key. Use during authorized red-team credential-access engagements after gaining a foothold or when triaging DPAPI blobs pulled from a host.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

Take over Active Directory accounts by writing attacker-controlled public keys to msDS-KeyCredentialLink (Shadow Credentials) with pyWhisker, Whisker, or Certipy, then authenticate via PKINIT to recover the target's NT hash without a password reset. Use when BloodHound shows GenericWrite/GenericAll/AddKeyCredentialLink over a target, as a stealthier alternative to ForceChangePassword, during authorized red-team engagements.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

Prepare a defense-contractor environment for CMMC Level 2 certification: scope CUI and FCI, implement the 110 NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 security requirements across 14 families, compute the SPRS score with the DoD Assessment Methodology, manage a compliant POA&M, and ready the organization for a C3PAO assessment. Use when an organization handles Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) under a DoD contract, when a contract carries DFARS clause 252.204-7012/7019/7020/7021, when preparing for or responding to a CMMC assessment, when computing or improving an SPRS score, when building a System Security Plan or POA&M for 800-171, or when scoping which systems are in the CUI boundary. Keywords: CMMC, CMMC Level 2, NIST 800-171, SP 800-171 Rev 2, CUI, FCI, SPRS, DFARS 7012, C3PAO, POA&M, System Security Plan, DoD Assessment Methodology, 110 controls, defense industrial base, DIB, FedRAMP equivalency.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

Create forensically sound bit-for-bit disk images with dd or dcfldd on a Linux forensic workstation, preserving evidence integrity through hash verification (MD5/SHA) during acquisition. Use when imaging a suspect drive, USB device, or memory card for investigation, preserving volatile disk evidence during incident response, or producing a verified copy for legal or law-enforcement proceedings before any destructive analysis.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

Detect dangerous ACL misconfigurations in Active Directory using ldap3 to identify GenericAll, WriteDACL, and WriteOwner abuse paths

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

Perform static analysis of Android APK malware using apktool for resource decompilation, jadx for Java source recovery, and androguard for manifest inspection, dangerous permission-combination detection, and identification of obfuscated code, dynamic code loading, and reflection-based API calls. Use to statically triage a suspicious APK without executing it or to build mobile malware detection rules.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills3.4万2026年8月31日 更新

mukul975 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する