←back to thread

Shai-Hulud malware attack: Tinycolor and over 40 NPM packages compromised

(socket.dev)
1208 points jamesberthoty | 1 comments | 16 Sep 25 11:22 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
codemonkey-zeta ◴[16 Sep 25 11:56 UTC] No.45261026[source]▶
I'm coming to the unfortunate realizattion that supply chain attacks like this are simply baked into the modern JavaScript ecosystem. Vendoring can mitigate your immediate exposure, but does not solve this problem.

These attacks may just be the final push I needed to take server rendering (without js) more seriously. The HTMX folks convinced me that I can get REALLY far without any JavaScript, and my apps will probably be faster and less janky anyway.

replies(18): >>45261086 #>>45261121 #>>45261140 #>>45261165 #>>45261220 #>>45261265 #>>45261285 #>>45261457 #>>45261571 #>>45261702 #>>45261970 #>>45262601 #>>45262619 #>>45262851 #>>45267210 #>>45268405 #>>45269073 #>>45273081 #
tarruda ◴[16 Sep 25 12:11 UTC] No.45261165[source]▶
AFAICT, the only thing this attack relies on, is the lack of scrutiny by developers when adding new dependencies.

Unless this lack of scrutiny is exclusive to JavaScript ecosystem, then this attack could just as well have happened in Rust or Golang.

replies(6): >>45261185 #>>45261224 #>>45261255 #>>45262968 #>>45267488 #>>45274187 #
hsbauauvhabzb ◴[16 Sep 25 12:13 UTC] No.45261185[source]▶
JavaScript does have some pretty insane dependency trees. Most other languages don’t have anywhere near that level of nestedness.
replies(4): >>45261308 #>>45261471 #>>45261685 #>>45261896 #
cxr ◴[16 Sep 25 12:45 UTC] No.45261471[source]▶
It's not possible for a language to have an insane dependency tree. That's an attribute of a codebase.
replies(2): >>45262259 #>>45262954 #
orbital-decay ◴[16 Sep 25 14:42 UTC] No.45262954{4}[source]▶
Modern programming languages don't exist in a vacuum, they are tied to the existing codebase and libraries.
replies(2): >>45264151 #>>45267432 #
1. kelnos ◴[16 Sep 25 20:20 UTC] No.45267432{5}[source]▶
Sort of, but I don't really buy this argument. Someone could go and write the "missing JS stdlib" library that has no dependencies of its own. They could adopt release policies that reduce the risk of successful supply chain attacks. Other people could depend on it and not suffer deep dependency trees.

JS library authors in general could decide to write their own (or carefully copy-paste from libraries) utility functions for things rather than depend on a huge mess of packages. This isn't always a great path; obviously reinventing the wheel can come with its own problems.

So yes, I'd agree that the ecosystem encourages JS/TS developers to make use of the existing set of libraries and packages with deep dependency trees, but no one is holding a gun to anyone's head. There are other ways to do it.