Maintainer @iChenLei reports they are negotiating with npm officials to restore access: https://github.com/stylus/stylus/issues/2938
https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-fh4q-jc76-r59p
I'm still unsure if it's a mistake on NPM side or if stylus and the authors are compromised
Many suggestions for workarounds, but if the GHSA is indeed accurate (all versions affected) then that seems unwise.
And the GHSA advisory: 2025-07-23T03:03:56Z
So the GHSA was released after the pull (by a minute).
Stylus has been around for 15 (FIFTEEN) years. Obviously the "vulnerability" is a lie.
Npm is known to cause huge losses of money for developers and companies around the world when they pull things like this, blindly applying advisories.
There is an interesting comment by one of the older maintainers of stylus, Panya [1]. Taking this at face value, they claim to have published some malicious packages for research purposes about dependency confusion [2] (their link). This also fits with the comments of a few people claiming to be security researchers, [3] and [4], which at least say the same and point to three malicious packages published by Panya.
Based off of that, my own personal interpretation and simplest thesis is that Panya released some packages with questionable code. This triggered some security mechanism in npm and that system yanked packages they were a contributor of [5], because the account looked compromised or otherwise malicious. And then pipelines went red.
If this was an actual malicious act, or curiosity about security and security responses getting a fairly nuclear security response, I don't know. You need to apply your own security reasoning to this -- if you even want to trust this comment :)
I just wanted to collect the interesting comments in a place, because that ticket is getting impossible to navigate.
1: https://github.com/stylus/stylus/issues/2938#issuecomment-31...
2: https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60f...
3: https://github.com/stylus/stylus/issues/2938#issuecomment-31...
4: https://github.com/stylus/stylus/issues/2938#issuecomment-31...
5: https://github.com/stylus/stylus/issues/2938#issuecomment-31...
5, also: https://github.com/stylus/stylus/issues/2938#issuecomment-31... (thanks to the sibling comment, I couldn't find that anymore)
My staging build was failing and I saw that stylus was the culprit. Running `npm why stylus`, `npm ls --all stylus`, and other variants of these two commands consistently returned nothing, but I can see it in my lockfile if I run `grep -R stylus package-lock.json`.
Even running `npm audit | grep stylus` returned nothing! Which I think is pretty crazy considering the package itself has been overwritten by NPM to include a 0 context scary "Security holding package" thing. Surely this sort of thing should show up in the `audit` results?
Add this on your package.json on the end of file bevor last }:
},
"overrides": {
"stylus": "0.0.1-security"
}Looks suspicious if you ask me. Maybe somebody hacked the github advisory db?
It seems like every week there is a new security high sev ticket to fix some webpack dependency.
Not to mention that even if you do successfully run “npm audit fix” (—force), Npm may not update to the correct new version and will often downgrade packages many many many versions.
The error messages that Npm spits out have always frightened junior devs too.
I can’t wait for that whole ecosystem to be replaced.
So you probably need to carefully audit the changes from two data sources and the security ticket ends up being 2+ merge requests.
I see two comments here on this subject, complaining about the churn of dealing with security advisories. Sure, it's churn.
... but isn't this problem dwarfed by the implications of having used a compromised package? Presumably, if the project you work on has a compromised dependency, it means you've ran it on your development machine. Presumably, you might have a couple of secrets (private keys, AWS credentials and other whatnots) lying around, which might have leaked to a malicious actor.
Wouldn't you need to review all the development, staging and production machines for all your projects and rotate secrets everywhere?
Wouldn't it be, by far, the biggest churn involved, so much that mentioning "npm audit" difficulties not worth mentioning at all, because of the ridiculous comparison in effort magnitude?
To your point I think you will find most companies stop at the upgrade high sev packages step and do not have any requirements or churn related to checking for fallout from sevs.
It seems crazy to me that there's this ostrich culture about security. I'm guessing the vibecoding fashion doesn't help. Supply chain attacks can only grow exponential from there, flee for your lives.
Since it's most probably false, the implications you refer to remain hypothetical, while the cost of cleaning up after npm's decision are measured in real M$s. And I think that's the real issue here.
I am not saying that we should give up on security altogether, but now there is so much toil attached to managing security, compliance and such aspects of the development lifecycle, that at some point managing all these aspects will outweigh all productivity a dev can bring to the project.
It's admittedly a hyperbole, but at that point the whole development procedure would simply become a pointless exercise without any benefit to anyone.
So the damage is already done, and real security problems will never be properly addressed. One must come to the conclusion that NPM has to be avoided at all cost if security is a concern at all. Additionally, one must make sure that when onboarding a developer coming from the NPM world into a sane project, they have to be properly de-conditioned with regards to security advisories.
You can just host your own package repo and run your own verification to confirm if a package is indeed vulnerable or not. If it's not, you can just continue your operations as usual, regardless of what NPM (the company, the host provider, not the CLI tool) does in the background.
What NPM did here is eradicate every single version of stylus ever published, so the breakage for the large majority of people here is that NPM will now try to fetch a non-existent package, which will cause CI and other scripts that rely on `npm ci` or `npm i` to fail.
It's one thing to get a big scary warning saying "Hey, stylus has a vulnerability, here's an overview of the issue..." and then pushing out the overwritten version as its own standalone version that people can migrate to. Instead, NPM silently overtook a package and overrode it completely. Running `npm audit` in a project affected by this, I see 0 mention of stylus in it, there is ZERO indication anywhere that something about this package is wrong other than the fact that the package basically doesn't exist in the registry anymore. And in my testing so far, things like `package.json` `overrides` fields does not work [1].
So I wouldn't say this is your typical vulnerability situation. They pulled packages with 0 warning or notice to anyone, and their own security audit tooling gives you nothing to go by, and there seems to be basically nothing you can do to fix this, depending on how exactly your project is setup. We're not even sure there is an actual attack or vulnerability, because they don't link to any details literally anywhere! Just take a look at the NPM page [2], there are ZERO details here! And even weirder (could be that NPM just doesn't count downloads this early into a change's lifecycle), the downloads for the version they override is sitting at 0, to me indicating that nobody has been able to even download this, which I can confirm at least anecdotally from me trying to fix this issue myself.
[1] https://github.com/npm/cli/issues/4232 [2] https://www.npmjs.com/package/stylus
The vast majority of "compromised packages" are just dev dependencies that have a slow regexp.
This has been reflected in a recent edit and comments here: https://github.com/stylus/stylus/issues/2938
No updates to the security advisory at this time: https://web.archive.org/web/20250723155624/https://github.co...
This advisory has been withdrawn because the stylus npm package is not malware.
It took a while, but we now have some clarity.
yoavfr•6mo ago