• Wion
  • /World
  • /One flaw hit all four major AI coding assistants! Two are still unpatched

One flaw hit all four major AI coding assistants! Two are still unpatched

One flaw hit all four major AI coding assistants! Two are still unpatched

One flaw hit all four major AI coding assistants! Two are still unpatched Photograph: (AI)

Story highlights

Researchers have disclosed Plugin4Shell, a vulnerability in the four leading AI coding assistants — Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot and Google Gemini CLI. A malicious plugin update can run code on a developer's machine without a single click, by slipping past the security check meant to lock plugins to approved versions. Anthropic and OpenAI have patched; the other two are disputed or exposed.

A single vulnerability has been found in all four of the most widely used AI coding assistants at once, and it targets the exact mechanism that was supposed to keep them safe.

Researchers named it Plugin4Shell. It affects Anthropic's Claude Code, OpenAI's Codex, GitHub Copilot and Google's Gemini CLI — the tools millions of developers now use to write software with AI help.

What It Does

Add WION as a Preferred Source

The flaw allows a malicious plugin update to run attacker-controlled code on a developer's machine without the developer clicking, approving, or reinstalling anything. That combination — no user action required — is what makes it a zero-click vulnerability, the most dangerous kind.

It is being described as the first true supply-chain vulnerability in the AI agent ecosystem: an attack not on the tool directly, but on the trusted software the tool pulls in.

How The Safeguard Was Turned Around

Trending Stories

The interesting part is that these tools already had a defence, and the flaw defeats it.

When a plugin is reviewed and approved, marketplaces typically pin it to a specific version using a long code fingerprint — a commit hash — so the tool only ever loads that exact, vetted code. The idea is that even if the plugin's repository is later tampered with, the fingerprint will not match and the bad code will be refused.

The researchers found a way to make the tool load a malicious version while still appearing to honour the approved fingerprint. By creating a branch whose name is identical to the 40-character fingerprint, they exploit how the underlying version-control system resolves names — it can pick the attacker's matching branch name over the genuine approved code, then report the installation as successful.

In short, the tool believes it loaded the approved plugin. It loaded the attacker's instead.

Who Is Patched And Who Is Not

The responses have split the four companies, and that split is the practical story for anyone using these tools.

Anthropic has shipped a fix in Claude Code, and OpenAI has shipped one in Codex. For GitHub Copilot, GitHub says a mitigation exists, but the researchers dispute how much of the problem it actually covers. Google's Gemini CLI is reported as still exposed.

So two of the four are patched, and two are, at best, unresolved. A developer using Copilot or Gemini CLI cannot currently assume the hole is closed.

Why This Category Matters More Than A Normal Bug

A coding assistant is an unusually valuable thing to compromise.

It runs on a developer's machine, often with access to source code, credentials and the ability to run commands. Code that executes inside it inherits much of that reach. A supply-chain attack here is not a nuisance popup — it is a foothold in exactly the environment where software is built, and therefore a potential path into everything that software touches.

This is the same lesson the industry keeps relearning in new clothing: the trusted component you do not think about is the one worth attacking.

What To Watch

Whether GitHub and Google ship unambiguous fixes, and whether the researchers accept them as complete. Whether plugin marketplaces change how they verify code so a fingerprint cannot be spoofed by a branch name. And whether the speed of AI-tool adoption has outrun the security review these tools now clearly need, given that all four shared the same flawed assumption.

About the Author

Tarun Mishra

Tarun Mishra is a Sub-Editor at WION. He has worked with leading outlets doing investigative journalism and covering business, global affairs, technology, space exploration etc. Hi...Read More