News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Compromised LiteLLM 1.107.0 on PyPI Installs a Credential... by detente18 on Thursday October 22, 2026 @12:21AM (#50191140)
Hi fny,

That's fair feedback. What I'm trying to express is the complexity of it.

For this to work:

1. The attacker had to get access to our internal gateway

2. Claude code had to embed the github oauth cli token in tool call responses (not directly, but as part of an embedded url call).

3. We had to enable request/response logging.

4. The attacker had to be aware of this token logging circumstance, then harvest multiple user account tokens (one of which had to belong to an org admin)

5. The attacker had to wait for / hope that we would expand the release trust boundary (as we did on Monday)

among other things. This wasn't a "whoops we had shitty governance around our auth tokens" kind of situation, it involved a number of non-trivial circumstances many of which were beyond the attacker's direct control, including Claude Code behavior of which we were not previously aware of, and a sophisticated attacker.

- Krrish

Re:Compromised LiteLLM 1.107.0 on PyPI Installs a Credential... by eddythompson80 on Thursday October 22, 2026 @01:37AM (#50191574)
FYI - accidentally logging secrets is a fairly common thing that happens. Request/response bodies are fairly common place that would include secrets or PII. but in general you’d be surprised what other actually innocent places that end up accidentally including secrets. Having credential scanners on the logs is a way to catch these early.

As for sophisticated attackers, I think that phrase should probably be retired at this point. Every attacker is a fairly sophisticated now since you can automate that sophistication. Attackers before used to have a set of tools that would try to connect or execute a bunch of automated prescripted checks, while any attacker now can automate the generation of those tools and scripts on demand