mirashii
Also worth noting that it doesn’t use Open VSX directly but uses a cursor hosted mirror at https://marketplace.cursorapi.com/open-vsx-mirror
Edit: the below was incorrect, left for posterity, the release can be deleted and then the tag as well.
Also, all their tags are immutable, and so can't just be deleted to hide things: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/concepts/supply-cha...
Edit: I was correct. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50304129
Here are two examples of where it's clear that the UB from the underlying C is still present and the optimization passes are still able to do things that wouldn't be possible without UB, like falling through functions and deleting safety checks inserted by the Fil-C runtime:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49677463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49681273
I'm not really convinced you can take LLVM and just flip a few poison bits off and remove a couple optimization passes and know that UB isn't going to explode in your face.
https://www.imperva.com/blog/node2shell-from-brotli-data-to-...
There's also a public POC here, though with the caveat that they demonstrated it only on builds with weaker configurations. https://github.com/dimasma0305/CVE-2026-111497-POC
All that said, we haven't heard the major cloud providers or security labs saying they've seen exploitation in the wild yet.
On top of that, the brotli library saw no releases for almost a full year, with the fix for this vulnerability being committed back in February. Google builds from main for all their projects, so were unaffected, but open source releases are a complete afterthought. Over 100 commits with miscellaneous fixes left languishing until a security incident forces a release.
Additionally, the author isn't engaging on this site in good faith. See this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50181138 from yesterday, where egregious vulnerabilities in this project were pointed out, at which point the author force pushed to hide the history, failed to fix the vulnerabilities pointed out (e.g. https://github.com/Qbix/proxy/blob/5a9f8a96f4bdaaaa5444b6986... still doesn't match the PHP multipart parser, so the whole defense can be mooted by switching to a space as the delimiter). This is an exemplar of slop.
I'm not sure about this part. I saw https://jackalsyn.com/posts/php-up-2026.html going around a bit over 12 hours ago, before the chainguard images went out, and plenty of other chatter of exploitation happening in the wild.
https://github.com/Qbix/proxy/blob/main/src/sanitize.c#L41 https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/main/SAPI.c#L162
The article linked from your own README (https://sansec.io/research/php2shell) has a better partial mitigation in existing, battle-tested reverse proxies. Even still, as that article says, everything here is a partial mitigation. The description of the issues in your project's README is an inaccurate understatement of the severity of the issues. "CVE-2026-109618 — heap use-after-free in the session.upload_progress handler" is an incomplete understatement of the issue, the session.upload_progress handler is only one of a number of potential exploitation paths. https://github.com/php/php-src/security/advisories/GHSA-w8hw... has some hints at other paths, of which there are many.
From an LLM, and quickly validated by me, a heap overflow, likely an RCE.
> src/http.c:101-116 and src/util.c:9
Attacker supplied value in strtoul, the size-limit checks are unsigned addition that can wrap, and you can follow the chain from there.
> or better yet submit a request.
This project is not deserving of fixing, it should just be deleted and direct people to more serious documentation of fixes and mitigations. This code is clearly AI-generated slop, it is not my responsibility to fix your project.
> I could understand if you actually at least clicked and looked at the repository, and read what it’s about. But you chose to simply write generic text without looking at anything. You want to discourage people from protecting their servers, in order to feel good about yourself. What amount of effort have you put into understanding what you’re even talking about?
Every accusation is an admission.
Honestly, and not to be harsh, but doing absolutely nothing is better than what you've done here.
Not only is this proxy unlikely to actually protect against the issues, but this code almost certainly has its own, equally bad security vulnerabilities. A 30 second check with Opus 5.5 found at least one heap overflow, multiple memory leaks, and a number of bugs that shows that it doesn't even succeed at doing what it claims. I appreciate that you're trying to help, but there are better tools for the approach that you're going for here, and injecting noise with AI slop that isn't even reviewed at a basic level is causing noise, confusion, and potential harm in an already urgent, tense situation.
It represents a couple weeks of on and off work, an experiment into how far I can push these tools to make sure I’m understanding them and not falling behind, and I like it a lot. I’ve considered open sourcing it, but to be honest, I don’t really want the burden of being a maintainer, and I have no interest in implementing or maintaining things that fall outside my use case, and so it’s just my own little toy. I imagine that many folks will end up doing the same given a bit of time.
https://leodemoura.github.io/blog/2026-8-1-postmortem-for-ke...
There's also a fairly well known incident where the Lean formalization of the Riemann Hypothesis in Mathlib was incorrect.