dex-router-abis has 1 version on RubyGems.org flagged in 1 incident we track. Only the exact versions listed below were named by the source advisories.
dex-router-abis was malicious from its first publish. There is no legitimate version to roll back to; remove it entirely.
Affected versions
Check what you actually have installed with gem list dex-router-abis.
OpenSSF/Amazon Inspector flagged 24 fresh malicious RubyGems on 2026-10-11 (ingested 2026-10-12) - all v0.9.1, all shipping an ext/<name>/extconf.rb base64-decoded Ruby payload that double-forks, sleeps 20-40 min, and pipes a TCP socket to /bin/sh against 45.138.12.177:8089. Same C2 IP, same evasion gates, same bitcoin_rpc_lite_native cover extension as the 2026-10-05 wgkit cluster - this is wave 2 of the same operator, now targeting DeFi/MEV/wallet-HD/NFT/TRC20/jetton verticals.
Versions named here: 0.9.1
What to do if you installed one of these
Treat the machine as compromised rather than simply upgrading. Packages in these incidents typically execute at install time, so the payload has already run with whatever credentials were in the environment.
1.Rotate every credential that machine or CI job could reach - registry tokens, cloud keys, SSH keys, CI secrets - from a different machine.
2.Pin to a version not listed above, then reinstall from a clean lockfile.
3.Clear caches and private mirrors. Artifactory, Nexus, Verdaccio, and devpi routinely keep serving a tarball after the public registry has pulled it.
4.Read the incident write-up above - recommended actions differ per incident, and some have specific indicators of compromise worth grepping your logs for.
Check your whole project
dex-router-abis is one of many packages in these incidents, and it is usually pulled in as a transitive dependency rather than one you installed directly. We don't parse RubyGems manifests yet, but the incident write-ups list every affected package.
Version data comes from the public advisories cited on each incident page. We list only versions those advisories name - we don't infer additional ones. Think this is wrong or incomplete? Tell us.
