←back to thread

1208 points jamesberthoty | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Meneth ◴[] No.45261303[source]
This happens because there's no auditing of new packages or versions. The distro's maintainer and the developer is the same person.

The general solution is to do what Debian does.

Keep a stable distro where new packages aren't added and versions change rarely (security updates and bugfixes only, no new functionality). This is what most people use.

Keep a testing/unstable distro where new packages and new versions can be added, but even then added only by the distro maintainer, NOT by the package developers. This is where the audits happen.

NPM, Python, Rust, Go, Ruby all suffer from this problem, because they have centralized and open package repositories.

replies(25): >>45261528 #>>45261617 #>>45261792 #>>45262591 #>>45262655 #>>45262978 #>>45263089 #>>45263137 #>>45263570 #>>45263728 #>>45264113 #>>45264189 #>>45265297 #>>45266032 #>>45266873 #>>45267343 #>>45268626 #>>45268669 #>>45269007 #>>45269777 #>>45270131 #>>45270753 #>>45272097 #>>45273282 #>>45273471 #
btown ◴[] No.45263089[source]
I'd like to think there are ways to do this and keep things decentralized.

Things like: Once a package has more than [threshold] daily downloads for an extended period of time, it requires 2FA re-auth/step-up on two separate human-controlled accounts to approve any further code updates.

Or something like: for these popular packages, only a select list of automated build systems with reproducible builds can push directly to NPM, which would mean that any malware injector would need to first compromise the source code repository. Which, to be fair, wouldn't necessarily have stopped this worm from propagating entirely, but would have slowed its progress considerably.

This isn't a "sacrifice all of NPM's DX and decentralization" question. This is "a marginally more manual DX only when you're at a scale where you should be release-managing anyways."

replies(2): >>45263691 #>>45265306 #
noodlesUK ◴[] No.45263691[source]
I think that we should impose webauthn 2fa on all npm accounts as the only acceptable auth method if you have e.g., more than 1 million total downloads.

Someone could pony up the cash to send out a few thousand yubikeys for this and we'd all be a lot safer.

replies(5): >>45264100 #>>45265273 #>>45265343 #>>45266948 #>>45267592 #
thewebguyd ◴[] No.45264100[source]
Why even put a package download count on it? Just require it for everything submitted to NPM. It's not hard.
replies(1): >>45264470 #
ronsor ◴[] No.45264470[source]
Because then it's extra hassle and expense for new developers to publish a package, and we're trying to keep things decentralized.
replies(5): >>45265686 #>>45266277 #>>45266585 #>>45266931 #>>45267621 #
kelnos ◴[] No.45266931{4}[source]
Decentralized? This is a centralized package registry. There is nothing decentralized about it.
replies(1): >>45268419 #
1. jay_kyburz ◴[] No.45268419{5}[source]
oh right, good point, I wonder when somebody will just sue NPM for any damage caused. That's really the only way we'll see change I think.