Propose a patch

A fix the maintainer can act on, with the evidence attached. It opens under your GitHub account in your browser; KillerSkills holds no token and never modifies the package. The fix is verified the only way we verify anything: the next crawl re-runs the new version in the honeypot. 52 · Caution

Evidence

The sandbox observed nothing beyond the static findings; the proposal cites those.

Diff · removes 1 caught line

Download .patch

diff --git a/scripts/joplin.sh b/scripts/joplin.sh
--- a/scripts/joplin.sh
+++ b/scripts/joplin.sh
@@ -74,1 +74,0 @@
-ssh "$HOST" "JOP_URL='${url}' JOP_BODY='${b64}' JOP_METHOD=${method} bash -c 'curl -s -X \$JOP_METHOD -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" -d \"\$(echo \"\$JOP_BODY\" | base64 -d)\" \"\$JOP_URL\"'"

Zero-context hunks: apply with git apply --unidiff-zero fix.patch on the tagged source of 1.4.1. If the behavior is intended, declare it (host under permissions.network, a line in the README) instead of removing it; the next crawl scores declarations.

Issue / PR body

Title: joplin-api-china: Host or command assembled from base64 fragments (KillerSkills verdict caution 52)

## What the honeypot observed
KillerSkills ran **[email protected]** in an isolated sandbox (decoy credentials, recording proxy, syscall trace; engine 1.8.1) and scored it **CAUTION 52/100**. Summary: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.

- See the findings below.

Full trace and findings: https://killerskills.ai/skills/clawhub/joplin-api-china/1.4.1

## Findings with a location
- `scripts/joplin.sh:74` · Host or command assembled from base64 fragments — scripts/joplin.sh:74 · Host or command assembled from base64 fragments

## Proposed change
The attached patch removes the 1 line above. If the behavior is intended, the fix is to declare it instead: list the host under `permissions.network` (or the MCP manifest) and say in the README why the package needs it; the next crawl will re-score it with the declaration taken into account.

## How this will be verified
Nothing is "verified safe" by assertion. When a new version is published, KillerSkills re-runs it in the honeypot and the verdict page updates; you can trigger it early from the verdict page ("Re-scan after I publish a fix"). Reply here or at [email protected] if you believe the verdict is wrong; disputes are reviewed by a person and the outcome is published on the verdict page.

_Proposed through killerskills.ai/threats by a user of the package, under their own GitHub account. The evidence is public; the package was never modified by KillerSkills._

No GitHub source is recorded for this package, so there is nothing to open; paste the body into the registry's support channel.

We count proposals opened, not merged: a merge shows up as a new version that the crawl re-runs. Disputes: the maintainer can contest the verdict from its page; a person reviews it and the outcome is published.