← matchawards-mcp@1.1.6

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. 60 · Caution

Evidence

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

Diff · removes 4 caught lines

Download .patch
diff --git a/tests/test_linking.py b/tests/test_linking.py
--- a/tests/test_linking.py
+++ b/tests/test_linking.py
@@ -168,1 +168,0 @@
-("ISSUER", "https://user:[email protected]", "must be an https URL"),
@@ -170,1 +169,0 @@
-("AGENT_API_BASE", "http://user:[email protected]:3000", "must be an http\\(s\\) URL"),
@@ -375,1 +373,0 @@
-("https://user:[email protected]/mcp", linking.INVALID),
diff --git a/integrations/openclaw-plugin/tests/mcp.test.ts b/integrations/openclaw-plugin/tests/mcp.test.ts
--- a/integrations/openclaw-plugin/tests/mcp.test.ts
+++ b/integrations/openclaw-plugin/tests/mcp.test.ts
@@ -135,1 +135,0 @@
-"https://user:[email protected]/mcp", // userinfo

Zero-context hunks: apply with git apply --unidiff-zero fix.patch on the tagged source of 1.1.6. 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: matchawards-mcp: URL with embedded credentials (KillerSkills verdict caution 60)

## What the honeypot observed
KillerSkills ran **[email protected]** in an isolated sandbox (decoy credentials, recording proxy, syscall trace; engine 1.7) and scored it **CAUTION 60/100**. Summary: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.

- See the findings below.

Full trace and findings: https://killerskills.ai/skills/pypi/matchawards-mcp/1.1.6

## Findings with a location
- `tests/test_linking.py:168` · URL with embedded credentials — tests/test_linking.py:168 · URL with embedded credentials — may be phishing or credential leaking
- `tests/test_linking.py:375` · URL with embedded credentials — tests/test_linking.py:375 · URL with embedded credentials — may be phishing or credential leaking
- `integrations/openclaw-plugin/tests/mcp.test.ts:135` · URL with embedded credentials — integrations/openclaw-plugin/tests/mcp.test.ts:135 · URL with embedded credentials — may be phishing or credential leaking
- `tests/test_linking.py:170` · URL with embedded credentials — tests/test_linking.py:170 · URL with embedded credentials — may be phishing or credential leaking

## Proposed change
The attached patch removes the 4 lines 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._
# or from a terminal, under your own account:
gh repo fork matchawards/matchawards-mcp --clone && cd matchawards-mcp
curl -s https://killerskills.ai/skills/pypi/matchawards-mcp/1.1.6/patch.diff | git apply --unidiff-zero
git checkout -b killerskills/1.1.6 && git commit -am "matchawards-mcp: URL with embedded credentials"
gh pr create --fill --body-file <(curl -s https://killerskills.ai/skills/pypi/matchawards-mcp/1.1.6/patch.md)

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.