In the example snippets from OP, the code shown is in the browser. I'm failing to see how the interception, as described, couldn't be handled by a decent Content Security Policy - instead of requiring yet another npm package. Seems safer than installing another package to address risk from ... installing packages.

▲

ghrl 3 days ago | parent [-]

I suppose if you're using a bundler, you will ship JS bundles including the malicious packages from your own trusted domain. How could CSP prevent this or similar attacks?

	▲	erpderp 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		According to the OP, in this specific case, the malware was mostly just intercepting legitimate fetch(), etc calls. With CSP `connect-src`, I don't think that would be possible unless the new fetch targets are themselves on allow-listed domains (which is a totally separate issue). For example, consider a CSP of: `Content-Security-Policy: connect-src 'self' https://api.example.com;`: This policy would allow fetch() requests only to the same origin ('self') and to https://api.example.com, blocking any attempts to connect to other domains (typically with a corresponding warning/error in the browser dev console). That said, in fairness, CSP is of course only applicable to frontend code (not to backend JS, where anecdotally I've seen a lot more usage of `chalk` and some of the other pwned packags), but frontend code and the `window` object is what the OP used in their examples and seems like they're targeting w/ webpack, hence my mentioning CSP.