DEV Community

Cover image for Composer Update Is Not Safe Anymore
Ivan Mykhavko
Ivan Mykhavko

Posted on

Composer Update Is Not Safe Anymore

Malicious code hidden in git tags on forks

Saturday morning. I opened Twitter and saw a tweet about the Laravel-Lang packages being compromised.

My first reaction was simple: "I don't use that package."

Then I opened composer.json on a project I work on and found this in require-dev:

"laravel-lang/lang": "^14.8",
"laravel-lang/publisher": "^16.8",
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

That changed things.

What Actually Happened

The attack used laravel-lang packages as the distribution channel. And the sneaky part: the main repository branch looked completely clean. No suspicious commits, no new code. The malicious payload was pushed via git tags on forks.

Most developers would not notice anything. Just a routine composer update, same as always.

Once installed, the payload executed at autoload time. That means every php artisan command, queue worker, or web request running that codebase triggered the malware the moment PHP hit require_once __DIR__.'/../vendor/autoload.php' in public/index.php. Silently. No error, no red screen, nothing.

The malware was a credential stealer. It searched the machine for:

  • .env files from Laravel projects
  • AWS access keys and session tokens
  • SSH private keys
  • GitHub CLI tokens
  • NPM tokens
  • Infrastructure secrets

This is not a SQL injection that messes with your database rows. This is a key stealer that runs on your machine and takes everything it finds.

Aikido Security caught it and reported it to Packagist. Packagist removed the affected versions. But if you ran composer update during that window, you were exposed.

Why Supply Chain Attacks Are Different

Classic Laravel security talks about SQL injection, XSS, CSRF. Those are attacks that come from outside users sending malicious input to your application.

Supply chain attacks come from inside your own development process. The attacker does not need to find a vulnerability in your code. They need to compromise one developer account at one package maintainer. Every project depending on that package is now exposed.

With AI tools, these attacks are getting more sophisticated and more frequent. The JavaScript ecosystem has been dealing with hundreds of similar incidents. PHP is catching up, unfortunately.

What I Actually Changed

On a project I work on, we run composer update on a regular schedule. After this incident, I sat down and wrote it all out.

The full workflow now looks like this:

# 1. Run composer update inside Docker
docker compose exec app composer update

# 2. Pin exact versions using jack raise-to-installed
docker compose exec app vendor/bin/jack raise-to-installed --dry-run  # preview first
docker compose exec app vendor/bin/jack raise-to-installed             # apply

# 3. Update lock hash
docker compose exec app composer update --lock

# 4. Commit everything
git add composer.json composer.lock
git commit -m "chore: update dependencies"
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

rector/jack is a tool by the Rector team that handles version management in composer.json. The raise-to-installed command takes whatever is currently installed and raises the constraints to match exactly. Instead of "guzzlehttp/guzzle": "^7.10", you get "guzzlehttp/guzzle": "^7.11". Each future composer update will only reach what you explicitly allow. This is not standard Composer practice. It trades upgrade convenience for a narrower blast radius on unexpected jumps.

One gotcha we hit: on a Laravel 10 project, bare composer update can fail with an advisory block. The fix is to add this to composer.json config:

"config": {
    "audit": {
        "abandoned": "report"
    },
    "policy": {
        "advisories": {
            "block": false
        }
    }
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Advisories are reported, not blocking. You still see them and still have to act on them. The update just runs.

Always verify what got bumped before committing. On that project, it runs PHP 8.1, so packages that require 8.2+ cannot be allowed in. After raise-to-installed dry run, check that nothing jumped to a version with a higher PHP floor.

One important caveat: this workflow would not have prevented the Laravel-Lang incident itself. By the time jack raise-to-installed runs, the infected version is already installed. raise-to-installed then pins that infected version as the new baseline. The actual defenses at install time are limited. composer audit helps against known advisories, but not against a malicious package that was compromised minutes ago. Run it anyway. Watch community reports before you update.

composer audit

Before updating, run:

composer audit
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

It checks installed packages against the PHP Security Advisories Database. On a fresh project, nothing shows up. On an older one, you might see something like:

Found 3 security vulnerability advisories affecting 2 packages:

Package symfony/http-kernel
CVE-2026-XXXXX: ...

Package league/commonmark
CVE-2026-XXXXX: ...
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Run it before and after updating. It tells you what you are actually fixing and confirms you resolved the reported issues.

Question Every Dependency

Every dependency is another trust relationship. Before adding one, ask: do I need the whole package, or just one function?

Not everything is replaceable. intervention/image or maatwebsite/excel? No. But have you actually thought about it, or did you just composer require by reflex?

Fewer packages means fewer attack surfaces. Fewer broken upgrades when the next Laravel major drops, too.

Check Social Media Before Updating

Follow Laravel security researchers and package maintainers on social media. Major incidents surface there before formal advisories land. The Laravel-Lang attack is a good example.

What Packagist Is Doing

Composer 2.10 integrated Aikido malware detection directly into Packagist. Every release tag now gets scanned automatically.

Stable version immutability is also shipping: once a version is published, it cannot be silently overwritten. One of the tricks in the Laravel-Lang attack was rewriting existing tags to inject malware, making it look like a version you already trusted.

Minimum release age is coming: new releases sit in a quarantine window before they show up in composer update. Security patches wait too. That's the tradeoff. But zero-day injection risk drops.

The long-term plan is a two-step release flow: tag a release, get an MFA confirmation request. A stolen account alone wouldn't be enough to push a release.

Good progress. The ecosystem is large, though, and none of this ships overnight.

TL;DR

Standard practice:

  • Commit composer.lock. Always.
  • Run composer audit before and after updating.
  • Update specific packages when possible, not everything at once.
  • Question every new dependency. One class does not need a full package.
  • Composer 2.10 added Aikido malware scanning and stable version immutability.

Personal workflow additions:

  • Use jack raise-to-installed after every composer update to pin constraints to installed versions. Not standard practice — trades upgrade convenience for narrower exposure on future unexpected jumps. Does not protect against a malicious release you just pulled.
  • Verify no package jumped past your PHP version floor after each update.
  • Follow Laravel security researchers on social media. Incidents surface there before formal advisories.

Supply chain attacks are no longer a JavaScript-only problem. The Laravel-Lang incident showed that PHP ecosystems are not immune. The workflow above does not guarantee safety. But it reduces the surface you're exposed to on the next update.


References:

Author's Note

Thanks for sticking around!
Find me on dev.to, linkedin, or you can check out my work on github.

Laravel, after the happy path.

Top comments (10)

Collapse
 
xwero profile image
david duymelinck • Edited

My first reaction was simple: "I don't use that package."

Then I opened composer.json on a project I work on and found this in require-dev:

I find the knee jerk reaction a bit strange because it is in composer.json of the project. That is one of the most important files of a project.
Not knowing your upper level dev dependencies is more a you problem.

While you looked after the knee jerk reaction, a better reaction is do any of my projects use that package? You never know if it is hidden in the dependency tree.

No suspicious commits, no new code

The attack added a helper.php file and changed the composer.json file.

If the CI flow fetches the dependencies, and they haven't changed from one commit to another. A file diff could have raised a warning.

Question Every Dependency

Yes and no. When you use a framework are you going to question every dependency that it brings?
People like Laravel because it has an ecosystem of packages that make it easy to add functionality. Are those people going to change their minds now supply chain attacks are becoming more and more of a threat?

Check Social Media Before Updating

A common practice is not to disclose the vulnerability until a solution has been provided. So thinking that social media would be the first place something is announced is a gamble you don't want to take in my opinion.
I would use a more secure platform, like an RSS feed of reputable security people and companies from their website.

I'm not going to pretend I have perfectly secure development workflows. We are all waking up in a more dangerous world. The javascript supply chain attacks should have been the canary in the coalmine for every packetmanager user. Malicious people always attack the biggest target first, but the smaller targets always follow.

For me this is another reason why IT people should be specialists instead of generalists. A company that has operations, backend and frontend people have more depth than a company that has only full stack people.
It is good to have some knowledge about different domains, but the domains are getting too vast for one person to be on point in multiple domains.

Collapse
 
tegos profile image
Ivan Mykhavko

Good points overall. A few reactions from the article's perspective:

On the "I don't use that package" reaction:

"You never know if it is hidden in the dependency tree."

Exactly why the article starts with that same moment checked composer.json and found it. With multiple projects, that check doesn't happen by reflex.

On social media vs. RSS:

"I would use a more secure platform, like an RSS feed"

Fair, but finding reliable security sources is hard. Social media is noisy, yes.
RSS requires you to already know who to follow.
The article leans on social because that's where the Laravel-Lang incident actually surfaced first - not as a strategy, more as a reality of how PHP security news travels right now.

On "Question Every Dependency":
The article isn't about auditing every Laravel core package.
It's about the reflex composer require for one utility function.
Framework packages carry more scrutiny by default. Random third-party packages don't.

On the CI file diff idea:
Sharp catch. The article covers composer audit and lockfile discipline, but detecting new files appearing in vendor/ between runs is a cheap, practical layer on top.
Worth adding.

On specialists vs. generalists:
Agreed, but that's a budget and org structure problem most teams aren't solving anytime soon. The workflow has to work with the people you have.

Thanks for the detailed breakdown, good discussion!

Collapse
 
xwero profile image
david duymelinck

Fair, but finding reliable security sources is hard

Is it really? Snyk is a widely known as a good resource. Framework blogs are also one when you use them. The releases feed of Github.

While social media surely can be be one of the sources that makes you aware of a problem, verify the claims with other sources.

Framework packages carry more scrutiny by default. Random third-party packages don't.

A random package is less likely to be a an attack vector. As I mentioned before big targets are more appealing because of the spread.
That is the reason they choose a well used Laravel package and not something that has 50 installs.

I agree that adding packages without scrutiny is a bad practice, and fewer packages are better. But in the context of supply chain attacks it is not that big of a deal.

The workflow has to work with the people you have.

I understand where you are coming from. And I agree it is not always possible to add more people to the mix.

It was more a general remark about the current way companies are hiring people. The problem I see with it is that people are going pretend they are capable which will lead to problems along the way. We have to be honest with ourselves, for the good of the products that we make and our own health.

Thread Thread
 
tegos profile image
Ivan Mykhavko

Fair points on both :)

On security sources Snyk, GitHub releases feed, framework blogs are solid.
But most developers aren't actively subscribing to any of these.
The gap isn't availability, it's awareness that these sources exist and matter.

On attack vectors you're right that a popular package is a bigger target by spread.

For the hiring point well said.
The "full-stack who also does DevOps" expectation sets people up to be mediocre across three domains instead of strong in one.
Hard to admit, but the products suffer for it.

Collapse
 
alexshev profile image
Alex Shev

Composer workflows are a good reminder that dependency management is a security process, not just a convenience command. The risky part is how normal the command feels: update, install, deploy, repeat.

I like treating upgrades as changes that need provenance, diff review, lockfile discipline, and CI checks. It slows the workflow a little, but it makes supply-chain risk visible before it becomes production behavior.

Collapse
 
tegos profile image
Ivan Mykhavko

Agree, the normalization is the actual risk. When a command becomes muscle memory, the security model disappears with it.

Treating a lockfile change like a code change - PR, reviewer, CI gate shifts the whole culture.
Supply chain attacks work because nobody's watching that layer.

Collapse
 
alexshev profile image
Alex Shev

Exactly. The dangerous moment is when dependency changes become invisible routine. The lockfile is basically executable risk inventory, so treating it as “just metadata” is where teams get exposed. A boring review habit there is worth more than a clever scanner nobody checks.

Collapse
 
ggle_in profile image
HARD IN SOFT OUT

This is the kind of post that makes me want to audit my entire composer.json at 2 AM. The tag‑reuse trick is genuinely sneaky — rewriting an existing tag makes the malicious version look like something you already trusted. (Also, the mental image of a credential stealer quietly running on every php artisan command is nightmare fuel.)

A couple of practical things from your workflow that I'm stealing:

  • The jack raise-to-installed approach is smart, but it has the same blind spot as regular composer update: it pins whatever you just installed, good or bad. What if you added a pre‑update quarantine step? Something like composer require into a temporary directory first, run composer audit and a quick diff on the package's source, then move to the real project. Slow, but for critical dependencies, worth the friction.

  • Your point about questioning every dependency is gold, but the threshold is fuzzy. One heuristic I've started using: if I can't explain in one sentence what the package does and what security boundary it crosses (filesystem, network, env), I don't add it. Most image processing libs cross no boundary; an "env‑helper" package that reads .env does.

One small suggestion: the config.policy.advisories.block = false workaround is helpful, but it's easy to forget to re‑enable. A pre‑commit hook that checks composer audit and fails if any advisory is marked "critical" would keep the safety net without blocking routine updates.

And because the Laravel‑Lang maintainers deserve a dark joke after this weekend:

A hacker pushes a malicious composer tag.

The credential stealer runs. It finds .env, AWS keys, SSH private keys.

It sends everything to a server.

The server replies: "Please update your package — this credential set is already expired."

Anyway, this post is a great service to the PHP community. Thank you for writing it up so clearly.

Collapse
 
tegos profile image
Ivan Mykhavko

Great points, especially the one sentence dependency heuristic. Thanks.

Collapse
 
itskondrat profile image
Mykola Kondratiuk

tag-injection attacks aren't new - npm and PyPI have been dealing with them for years. PHP just got its high-profile version. the fix, signed tags with provenance checks, is the same answer every ecosystem keeps punting on.