Spectra Assure
Community
Docs
failIncident: Malware
Scanned: 17 days ago

Language Support for Java(TM) by Red Hat

Artifact:
License: unknown
Published: 4 months ago
Publisher: redhat


SAFE Assessment

Compliance

Licenses
No license compliance issues
Secrets
8 debugging symbols found

Security

Vulnerabilities
1 critical severity vulnerabilities
Hardening
1 unsafe code linking practices

Threats

Tampering
5 tampered signatures detected
Malware
5 tampered signatures detected

INCIDENTS:

malware
4 months agoReported By: ReversingLabs (Automated)
Learn more about malware detection

Popularity

48.79M
Total Installs
Contributor
Declared Dependencies
78
Dependents

Top issues

Problem

Windows executable files are mapped in memory as a sequence of allocated pages backed by its physical content. The pages are grouped into sections with defined access rights. Starting executable file memory regions are reserved for the Portable Executable (PE) header, which has read-only access rights due to its criticality. Even the operating system should not implicitly modify the header contents. No operation during the image load sequence should write its results, nor relocate any data, to and from the headers. Vulnerability mitigations are implemented with the assumption that the headers are read-only, or immutable. Allowing headers to self-modify may lead to exposing critical security data to overwrites, tampering, and complete bypasses of vulnerability mitigations. This issue is typically reported when a software publisher uses a low quality executable packing solution.

Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community

No prevalence information at this time

Next steps

You should deprecate the use of runtime packers, or enforce digital rights management via less intrusive ways that preserve compatibility with vulnerability mitigation options.

Problem

Digital signatures are applied to applications, packages and documents as a cryptographically secured authenticity record. Signatures verify the origin and the integrity of the object they apply to. To validate the package integrity, the digital signature itself must be verified first. This ensures the signature is intact and there were no attempts to tamper with the data it contains. When signatures can't be successfully parsed and validated, there are two possible reasons. Either the signature got damaged during network transport, or there was an attempt to tamper with its contents. Discerning between the two is impossible without manually inspecting the affected packages.

Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community

No prevalence information at this time

Next steps

Inspect the software package for malicious software supply chain tampering.
If there is no evidence of tampering, re-sign and re-publish the software component.

Problem

Digital signatures are applied to applications, packages and documents as a cryptographically secured authenticity record. Signatures verify the origin and the integrity of the object they apply to. Signatures contain a cryptographic hash of the object they are signing. Any mismatch between the expected and computed hashes is reported as an integrity validation failure. This can happen for a few reasons. The software package may have been damaged during network transport, or a post-signing process changed some of the package contents, or there was an attempt to tamper with the package. Discerning between these cases is impossible without manually inspecting the affected packages.

Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community

No prevalence information at this time

Next steps

Inspect the software package for malicious software supply chain tampering.
If there is no evidence of tampering, re-sign and re-publish the software component.
If there are any post-signing processes that might modify the software package, move them to an earlier point in the release process.

Problem

Proprietary ReversingLabs analysis engine supports a wide range of commonly used archive and software packaging formats. Using automated static file decomposition technologies, the engine recursively analyzes complex software packages. Software analysis is typically conducted in multiple steps. Content identification, unpacking, validation, and classification are some of the steps performed on each analyzed file. The analysis engine may sometimes report file integrity problems while performing unpacking or validation steps. Failed integrity validation checks indicate that the content cannot be verified using its embedded checksums. This issue is commonly reported for packages with content that may be incomplete or corrupted. In rare occurrences this issue may indicate a problem with the analysis engine's file format parsing functions.

Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community

No prevalence information at this time

Next steps

Confirm that the software package contains incomplete or corrupted content.
Create a new version of the software package that resolves content integrity issues.
Contact the ReversingLabs support team if you suspect that the analysis engine may be causing the issue.

Problem

Digital signatures are applied to applications, packages and documents as a cryptographically secured authenticity record. Signatures verify the origin and the integrity of the object they apply to. Signatures contain a cryptographic hash of the object they are signing. Any mismatch between the expected and computed hashes is reported as an integrity validation failure. This can happen for a few reasons. Either the software package got damaged during network transport, or a post-signing process changed some of its contents, or there was an attempt to tamper with the package. Discerning between these cases is impossible without manually inspecting affected packages.

Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community

No prevalence information at this time

Next steps

Inspect the software package for malicious software supply chain tampering.
If there is no evidence of tampering, re-sign and re-publish the software package.
If there are any post-signing processes that might modify the software package, move them to an earlier point in the release process.

Top behaviors

Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community

No behavior prevalence information at this time

Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community

No behavior prevalence information at this time

Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community

No behavior prevalence information at this time

Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community

No behavior prevalence information at this time

Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community

No behavior prevalence information at this time

Top vulnerabilities

Vulnerability Exploitation Lifecycle
(5 Active Vulnerabilities)
5 (5 Fixable)
CVE-2017-1000487c
CVE-2022-4244h
CVE-2023-6378h
None
None
None
Exploits Unknown
Exploits Exist
Exploited by Malware
Patching Mandated

This website uses cookies to ensure the best website experience. By continuing to use this website you are giving your consent to cookies being used. Detailed information about our use of cookies is here.