Top
Best
New

Posted by colesantiago 6 days ago

Vercel April 2026 security incident(www.bleepingcomputer.com)
https://vercel.com/kb/bulletin/vercel-april-2026-security-in...
866 points | 492 commentspage 8
jamesfisher 6 days ago|
[flagged]
gib444 6 days ago||
You forgot the source to backup your claim
ascorbic 6 days ago|||
https://x.com/rauchg/status/1972669025525158031
jofzar 6 days ago||
Oof
jeromegv 6 days ago|||
https://techforpalestine.org/vercel
zrn900 6 days ago||
Crap...
monirmamoun 6 days ago||
[flagged]
jeromegv 6 days ago|
I knew from that moment never to use any Vercel product. If your leadership is that compromised, you know the rest of the ship is heading into a wall.
sreekanth850 6 days ago||
[flagged]
steve1977 6 days ago|
While I would agree, unfortunately with JavaScript vibecoding is not even necessary to run into issues.
LunaSea 6 days ago|||
Because Flash apps were so safe.
scrollaway 6 days ago||
Windows 95 was peak security. (/s)
Bridged7756 6 days ago|||
In C we don't have those issues.
yogigan 6 days ago||
[flagged]
maxboone 6 days ago||
How does that work, when you add an OAuth app, the resulting tokens are specific to that app having a certain set of permissions?

It's not a new attack vector as in giving too many scopes (beyond the usual "get personal details").

I am curious how this external OAuth app managed to move through the systems laterally.

efilife 6 days ago|||
LLM comment
steve1977 6 days ago|||
I'm not super savvy with OAuth, but shouldn't scopes prevent issues like this?

https://oauth.net/2/scope/

tgv 6 days ago|||
From what I understood at [1], Context.ai users "enable AI agents to perform actions across their external applications, facilitated via another 3rd-party service." I.e., it's designed to get someone's OAuth token and use it. Unless that is done really carefully, the risks are as high as the user's authorization goes. The danger doesn't only come from leaks, but also from agents, that can clear your db or directory at a whim.

[1] https://context.ai/security-update

steve1977 6 days ago||
Oof. So much incompetence at so many levels. It's scary.
highphive 6 days ago|||
They can mitigate it, if the user refuses to oauth into something that asks for too much scope. Most users just click "accept" (this claim based on no data at all).
Maxious 6 days ago||
> at least one Vercel employee signed up for the AI Office Suite using their Vercel enterprise account and granted “Allow All” permissions. Vercel’s internal OAuth configurations appear to have allowed this action to grant these broad permissions in Vercel’s enterprise Google Workspace.

https://context.ai/security-update

steve1977 6 days ago||
So it's not so much a problem with OAuth itself, but with the way it was implemented here?
owebmaster 6 days ago|||
Someone from marketing getting full access is absolutely a Vercel failure.
Nathanba 6 days ago|||
good point, we think of these OAuth logins as so safe and yet they may be the exact opposite because it's more like logging in with your master password. I think these oauth providers like Microsoft and Google need to start mandating 2FA for every company login, it's just too dangerous otherwise.
maxboone 6 days ago||
How would 2FA help here, you'd still create the compromised OAuth credential with 2FA?
jongjong 6 days ago||
I remember implementing OAuth2 for my platform months ago and I was using the username from the provider's platform as the username within my own platform... But this is a big problem because what if a different person creates an account with the same username on a different platform? They could authenticate themselves onto my platform using that other provider to hijack the first person's account!

Thankfully I patched this issue just before it became a viable exploit because the two platforms I was supporting at the time had different username conventions; Google used email addresses with an @ symbol and GitHub used plain usernames; this naturally prevented the possibility of username hijacking. I discovered this issue as I was upgrading my platform to support universal OAuth; it would have been a major flaw had I not identified this. This sounds similar to the Vercel issue.

Anyway my fix was to append a unique hash based on the username and platform combination to the end of the username on my platform.

maxboone 6 days ago||
You should use the subject identifiers, not the usernames. You store a mapping of provider & subject to internal users yourself.

But this has been a problem in the past where people would hijack the email and create a new Google account to sign in with Google with.

Similarly, when someone deletes their account with a provider, someone else can re-register it and your hash will end up the same. The subject identifiers should be unique according to the spec.

jongjong 6 days ago||
Ah yeah but I wanted my platform to provide universal OAuth with any platform (that my app developer user trusts) as OAuth provider. If you rely entirely on subject identifiers; in theory, it gives one platform (OAuth provider) the ability to hijack any account belonging to users authenticating via a different platform; e.g. one platform could fake the subject identifiers of their own platform/provider to intentionally make them match that of target accounts from a different platform/provider.

Now, I realize that this would require a large-scale conspiracy by the company/platform to execute but I don't want to trust one platform with access to accounts coming from a different platform. I don't want any possible edge cases. I wanted to fully isolate them. If one platform was compromised; that would be bad news for a subset of users, but not all users.

If the maker of an application wants to trust some obscure platform as their OAuth provider; they're welcome to. In fact, I allow people running their own KeyCloak instances as provider to do their own OAuth so it's actually a realistic scenario.

This is why I used the hash approach; I have full control over the username on my platform.

[EDIT] I forgot to mention I incorporate the issuer's sub in addition to their username to produce a username with a hash which I use as my username. The key point I wanted to get across here is don't trust one provider with accounts created via a different provider.

whoamii 6 days ago||
Proprietary techniques like this are usually a good indication you’re missing something. In this case it sounds like you are missing appropriate validation of the issuer and/or token itself.
jongjong 6 days ago||
I want to support OAuth2, not OpenID so I don't rely on a JWT; I call the issuer's endpoint directly from my backend using their official domain name over HTTPS. I use the sub field to avoid re-allocation of usernames/emails but my point is that I don't trust it on its own; I couple it with the provider ID.

To make it universal, I had to keep complexity minimal and focus on the most supported protocol which is plain OAuth2.

ksajadi 6 days ago||
[flagged]
nikcub 6 days ago|
he's completely ripped that post from the person who originally found it on breach forums. absolutely shameless.

https://x.com/DiffeKey/status/2045813085408051670

hansmayer 6 days ago||
[flagged]
neom 6 days ago||
https://x.com/theo/status/2045871215705747965 - "Everything I know about this hack suggests it could happen to any host"

He also suggests in another post that Linear and GitHub could also be pwned?

Either way, hugops to all the SRE/DevOps out there, seems like it's going to be a busy Sunday for many.

phillipcarter 6 days ago||
I don't know if I'd trust some random programmer-streamer-influencer on anything other than the topic of streamer-influencing.
hvb2 6 days ago|||
The link at the top of the page it to vercel acknowledging it...
phillipcarter 6 days ago||
Vercel acknowledges a security incident, which nobody is claiming doesn't exist. What they don't acknowledge are this person's vague implications about impact elsewhere.
embedding-shape 6 days ago|||
Based on what, "feels like it"? Claiming that Cloudflare is affected by the same hack has to come from somewhere, but where is that coming from?
gruez 6 days ago||
from his "sources".

> Here’s what I’ve managed to get from my sources:

>3. The method of compromise was likely used to hit multiple companies other than Vercel.

https://x.com/theo/status/2045870216555499636

To be fair journalists often do this too, eg. "[company] was breached, people within the company claim"

eddythompson80 6 days ago||
Isn’t he a Vercel evangelist though?
TiredOfLife 6 days ago|||
He quite publicly is not anymore.
troupo 6 days ago|||
He is "whatever gives me short-term boost in popularity". Including doing 180 turns on whatever he's evangelizing or bashing.
eddythompson80 6 days ago|||
Fair enough. That’s probably a better description from what I’ve seen from him. I remember that arc browser shilling.
Barbing 6 days ago||||
Good for the content but would sponsors be on board long term?
brazukadev 6 days ago|||
Let's see. Roasting vercel is more popular than defending but his posts so far he seems to be defending and arguing in the replies.
recursivegirth 6 days ago|||
Ah, Theo with his vast insights and connections into everything. That man gets around, and his content is worth it's cost.

Theo's content boils down to the same boring formula. 1. Whatever buzzword headline is trending at the time 2. Immediate sponsored ad that is supposed to make you sympathize with Theo cause he "vets" his sponsors. 3. The man makes you listen to a "that totally happened" story that he somehow always involved himself personally. 4. Man serves you up an ad for his t3.chat and how it's the greatest thing in the world and how he should be paid more for his infinite wisdom. 5. A rag on Claude or OpenAI (whichever is leading at the time) 6. 5-10 minutes of paraphrasing an article without critical thought or analysis on the video topic.

I used to enjoy his content when he was still in his Ping era, but it's clear hes drunken the YT marketer kool-aid. I've moved on, his content gets recommend now and again, but I can't entertain his non-sense anymore.

rubslopes 6 days ago|||
I just wanted to chime in and say I think he is knowledgeable; he's not a con. I know you didn't say that, but people might have the impression he doesn't know what he's talking about. He does know, and I've learned quite a lot from him in the past.

However, since the LLM Cambria explosion, he has become very clickbaity, and his content has become shallow. I don't watch his videos anymore.

sgarland 6 days ago|||
Not that I ever had confidence in his technical knowledge, but it went to zero when he confidently asserted that there was no possible way a single server could handle the massive traffic some NextJS app he had made was serving. He then posted the bill - which was about $5K IIRC - and I was able to determine from the billed runtime and memory that a modestly-spec’d RPi could in fact handle it.
well_ackshually 6 days ago|||
> he's not a con.

When you're putting the bar that low, sure.

He's about as knowledgeable as the junior you hired last week, except that he speaks from a position of authority and gets retweeted by the entire JS slop sphere. He's LinkedIn slop for Gen Z.

neom 6 days ago|||
I don't watch his content, but I felt comfortable posting his link as I believe he's generally considered a reputable guy? His tweets sometimes come up in my for you tab and he seems reasonable and knowledgable generally? Maybe I'm wrong and shouldn't have linked to him as a source.
steve_adams_86 6 days ago|||
He's kind of like an LLM in that his content has the surface texture of something substantial, and sometimes it's backed by substance, yet it's often half-true or totally off the mark too. You'll notice if you're previously acquainted with what he's talking about, otherwise he seems to be as you described.

I don't think he's a bad guy or that he's trying to be misleading. I suspect he wants his content to actually carry value, but he produces too much for that to be possible. Primarily he's a performer, not a technologist.

arabsson 6 days ago||
I agree with this comment. YouTube's summarize this video feature has been a godsend when it comes to Theo's videos.
threetonesun 6 days ago|||
Nothing on x.com is reputable at this point.
techpression 6 days ago|||
”Any host” of what? That’s such a non-descriptive statement and clearly not true at face value.
rvz 6 days ago|||
I do remember that OpenAI did use Vercel a year ago. They might have likely moved off of it to something better.
pxc 6 days ago||
OpenAI owns Contexts.ai, doesn't it?
nozzlegear 6 days ago||
> @theo: "I have reason to believe this is credible. If you are using Vercel, it’s a good idea to roll your secrets and env vars."

> @ErdalToprak: "And use your own vps or k3s cluster there’s no reason in 2026 to delegate your infra to a middle man except if you’re at AWS level needs"

> @theo: "This is still a stupid take"

lol, okay. Thanks for the insight, Theo, whoever you are.

uxhacker 6 days ago|||
What is AWS level needs?
raw_anon_1111 6 days ago|||
Hell doing this with fixed price AWS Lightsale based services would be better.
nozzlegear 6 days ago|||
You'll have to ask @ErdalToprak on Twitter on that one. I just thought it was funny that this slopfluencer, who's taken money to advertise Vercel, ostensibly believes that using a VPS/k3s is "a stupid take."
nozzlegear 6 days ago|||
Theo subscribers didn't like this one
mikert89 6 days ago|
Much as I want to rip on vercel, its clear that ai is going to lead to mass security breaches. The attack surface is so large, and ai agents are working around the clock. This is a new normal. Open source software is going to change, companies wont be running random repos off github anymore
sph 6 days ago||
Your entire recent posting history is "software engineering is over, AI has won."

What's your agenda here?

nothinkjustai 6 days ago|||
The guy has like 10 thousand comments boosting AI and 600 karma, whatever his agenda is people aren’t buying it.
bossyTeacher 6 days ago||||
Paid by a Sama minion, I bet.
mikert89 6 days ago|||
how many recent security breaches have we seen?
nozzlegear 6 days ago|||
How many can unequivocally be attributed to malicious AI?
hansmayer 6 days ago|||
Most of recent issues, including this incident, happened not due to smart superintelligent "agents" taking over the world - chatbots and other text generators are about as intelligent amd powerful as a dead starfish - but due to the combined stupidity of the said chatbots amd lazy idiots who use them to hide their own incompetence and thus produce such embarassing mistakes. A few years ago, they would be fired for exposing secrets in plain text, but since their manager wanted an AI-Workflow...
Bridged7756 6 days ago|||
LOL. Attackers will run these agents but the thousands of maintainers will be so dumb to sit idly and get hammered with exploits. I wonder what the ratio of attackers to maintainers must be, 1:1000 is a fair assessment i take it.

Also LLMs will be used to attack only, no one will be smart to integrate it into CI flows, because everyone is that dumb. No security tools will pop up.

goalieca 6 days ago|||
Slop coding and makeshift sites being thrown up with abandon at breakneck speeds is going to buy me a lot of minivans.
tcp_handshaker 6 days ago|||
>> ai is going to lead to mass security breaches.

Let that be the end of Microsoft. Was forced to use their shitty products for years, by corporate inertia and their free Teams and Azure licenses, first-dose-is-free, curse.

lijok 6 days ago||
ShinyHunters are a phishing group. What does this have to do with AI agents?
mikert89 6 days ago||
Run ai agents around the clock to do hyper targeted fishing
cj 6 days ago||
I feel like humans would be better at hyper targeting.

AI agents have the benefit of working at scale, probably "better" used for mass targeting.

mikert89 6 days ago|||
this like is saying email marketing is done better if you hand write every email. Thats true, but the hit rate is so low, that you are better off generating 1 million hyper personalized emails and firing them off into the ether
mcmcmc 6 days ago|||
As someone who did the former for a couple years, “better off” is subjective and dependent on your business model, particularly for B2B. It’s a trade off like anything else. You may get more leads, but they may convert at a lower rate. Sending at that scale also increases your risk of email deliverability problems. Trashing your domain has more impacts than you’d think. In smaller, targeted markets it even can damage your business reputation and hurt future sales if done poorly; word gets around.
cj 6 days ago|||
If you’re targeting a million people, I wouldn’t consider that a hyper targeted attack.

But I get your point.

freedomben 6 days ago|||
I disagree. Many humans are phishing in a different language than their native tongue, and LLMs are way better at sounding legit/professional than many of them. The best spear-phishing will still be humans, but AI definitely raises the bar.