Amazon has linked a series of high-profile npm supply chain compromises spanning 2025 and 2026 to the North Korean threat group Sapphire Sleet, suggesting that attacks initially viewed as isolated incidents may instead represent a coordinated campaign targeting widely trusted open source software.
In a threat intelligence report published on July 29, Amazon assessed with medium confidence that the same actor responsible for the March 2026 compromise of the popular JavaScript package axios was also behind earlier attacks involving the npm packages debug and chalk, as well as a lesser-known package called typo-crypto. The assessment expands the scope of what security researchers now believe to be a sustained operation aimed at infiltrating software supply chains through compromised maintainer accounts.
The September 2025 incident involving debug and chalk drew widespread attention after attackers successfully phished an npm maintainer using a fraudulent npm website designed to harvest credentials. Once access was obtained, malicious updates were published to multiple packages collectively downloaded billions of times each week. Rather than infecting developers' systems directly, the malicious code targeted cryptocurrency users by intercepting browser-based wallet activity and replacing legitimate transaction addresses before users approved transfers.
At the time, security firms including Aikido Security and Wiz documented the compromise and analyzed its technical behavior, but neither publicly attributed the operation to a specific threat actor. Amazon's latest research represents the first detailed effort to connect that incident with a broader campaign linked to North Korea.
According to Amazon, investigators uncovered additional evidence while examining the March 2026 axios compromise. During that investigation, analysts identified a domain registered in 2025 that ultimately led them to a previously overlooked npm package named typo-crypto. Although the package attracted relatively few downloads, Amazon believes it served as an early testing ground for techniques that later appeared in attacks targeting far more widely used libraries.
The company argues that the campaigns share several operational characteristics, including the deployment of trojanized packages, overlapping command-and-control infrastructure, similarities in malicious code, and the use of social engineering to gain access to trusted maintainer accounts before distributing compromised package updates. Based on those shared indicators, Amazon believes the incidents form part of the same long-running operation.
However, the report has also prompted discussion within the security community regarding the strength of the evidence supporting the attribution. While Amazon outlines common tactics and infrastructure across the campaigns, the report does not publicly specify which individual indicators directly connect each incident. As a result, some researchers have noted that although the overall assessment appears plausible, additional technical evidence would help strengthen the case for linking every campaign to the same actor.
The technical methods employed across the attacks also differed substantially.
The malicious code inserted into debug and chalk functioned primarily within web browsers. It intercepted browser APIs associated with cryptocurrency wallets and modified transaction destinations before users authorized transfers. Security researchers observed that the attack did not rely on npm lifecycle scripts or establish persistent malware on infected systems.
By contrast, the March 2026 axios compromise involved a post-install payload that executed during package installation, allowing attackers to deploy additional malicious components. Amazon also identified similarities between that campaign and the earlier typo-crypto package, which contained a disguised file named core.js. The file reportedly activated only after receiving a specific trigger and then retrieved an operating system-specific second-stage payload from a remote command-and-control server.
Amazon identified infrastructure associated with the malicious package, including the domain npmjs.store and the IP address 216.74.123.126. The company also noted that the malware concealed portions of its functionality using Base64 encoding combined with an XOR-based obfuscation routine.
Further examination of the npm registry revealed additional irregularities surrounding typo-crypto. The package appeared to have been published only once, with no earlier legitimate versions preceding the malicious release. Its metadata closely resembled that of the legitimate crypto-js project, including copied descriptions and keywords, while advertising a version number ahead of crypto-js itself. Those characteristics suggest the package was created from the outset to impersonate an established library rather than resulting from the compromise of an existing maintainer account.
Amazon also referenced the Open Source Vulnerabilities database entry MAL-2026-3400 in connection with typo-crypto. Registry records indicate that the package remained publicly available at the time researchers reviewed it. Although it did not declare an install script capable of automatically executing malicious code upon installation, investigators confirmed that the embedded core.js file contained trigger values consistent with Amazon's analysis. Researchers also identified discrepancies involving one published SHA-256 hash, leaving open the possibility of either a documentation error or a hash corresponding to a different sample.
The attribution aligns with assessments previously made by other major cybersecurity vendors regarding the axios compromise. Google attributed that incident to the cluster it tracks as UNC1069, citing malware known as WAVESHAPER.V2 together with infrastructure previously associated with the group. Microsoft separately attributed the operation to Sapphire Sleet, a financially motivated North Korean threat actor also tracked under several alternative names by different security vendors.
Threat intelligence researchers generally consider medium-confidence assessments to indicate that multiple independent indicators support an attribution while acknowledging that additional evidence could alter future conclusions. In this case, Amazon's analysis represents another step toward understanding the relationship between several supply chain attacks, even as researchers continue examining the technical links connecting them.
Open source software ecosystems remain attractive targets because compromising a single trusted package can affect thousands of downstream applications and organizations. Libraries such as debug, chalk, and axios are deeply embedded throughout the JavaScript ecosystem, meaning malicious updates have the potential to propagate rapidly across development environments before they are detected.
The incidents have also renewed attention on software supply chain security. Earlier this month, npm introduced version 12, disabling dependency lifecycle scripts by default to reduce opportunities for post-install malware execution. The registry has also begun scanning newly published packages for malicious code before they become available to users. While these measures help address certain attack techniques, security researchers caution that they do not eliminate the risk posed by compromised maintainer accounts obtained through phishing or other forms of social engineering.
As open source ecosystems continue to expand, security experts expect attackers to increasingly focus on trusted maintainers rather than exploiting software vulnerabilities alone. The latest attribution from Amazon underlines the growing role of identity-based attacks in software supply chain operations and emphasises the continuing need for stronger maintainer protections alongside technical safeguards.
Amazon has announced that its threat intelligence division has intervened in ongoing cyber operations attributed to hackers associated with Russia’s foreign military intelligence service, the GRU. The activity targeted organizations using Amazon’s cloud infrastructure, with attackers attempting to gain unauthorized access to customer-managed systems.
The company reported that the malicious campaign dates back to 2021 and largely concentrated on Western critical infrastructure. Within this scope, energy-related organizations were among the most frequently targeted sectors, indicating a strategic focus on high-impact industries.
Amazon’s investigation shows that the attackers initially relied on exploiting security weaknesses to break into networks. Over multiple years, they used a combination of newly discovered flaws and already known vulnerabilities in enterprise technologies, including security appliances, collaboration software, and data protection platforms. These weaknesses served as their primary entry points.
As the campaign progressed, the attackers adjusted their approach. By 2025, Amazon observed a reduced reliance on vulnerability exploitation. Instead, the group increasingly targeted customer network edge devices that were incorrectly configured. These included enterprise routers, VPN gateways, network management systems, collaboration tools, and cloud-based project management platforms.
Devices with exposed administrative interfaces or weak security controls became easy targets. By exploiting configuration errors rather than software flaws, the attackers achieved the same long-term goals: maintaining persistent access to critical networks and collecting login credentials for later use.
Amazon noted that this shift reflects a change in operational focus rather than intent. While misconfiguration abuse has been observed since at least 2022, the sustained emphasis on this tactic in 2025 suggests the attackers deliberately scaled back efforts to exploit zero-day and known vulnerabilities. Despite this evolution, their core objectives remained unchanged: credential theft and quiet movement within victim environments using minimal resources and low visibility.
Based on overlapping infrastructure and targeting similarities with previously identified threat groups, Amazon assessed with high confidence that the activity is linked to GRU-associated hackers. The company believes one subgroup, previously identified by external researchers, may be responsible for actions taken after initial compromise as part of a broader, multi-unit campaign.
Although Amazon did not directly observe how data was extracted, forensic evidence suggests passive network monitoring techniques were used. Indicators included delays between initial device compromise and credential usage, as well as unauthorized reuse of legitimate organizational credentials.
The compromised systems were customer-controlled network appliances running on Amazon EC2 instances. Amazon emphasized that no vulnerabilities in AWS services themselves were exploited during these attacks.
Once the activity was detected, Amazon moved to secure affected instances, alerted impacted customers, and shared intelligence with relevant vendors and industry partners. The company stated that coordinated action helped disrupt the attackers’ operations and limit further exposure.
Amazon also released a list of internet addresses linked to the activity but cautioned organizations against blocking them without proper analysis, as they belong to legitimate systems that had been hijacked.
To mitigate similar threats, Amazon recommended immediate steps such as auditing network device configurations, monitoring for credential replay, and closely tracking access to administrative portals. For AWS users, additional measures include isolating management interfaces, tightening security group rules, and enabling monitoring tools like CloudTrail, GuardDuty, and VPC Flow Logs.