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

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.

This is a culture issue with developers who find it OK to have hundreds of (transitive) dependencies, and then follow processes that, for all intents and purposes, blindly auto update them, thereby giving hundreds of third-parties access to their build (or worse) execution environments.

Adding friction to the sharing of code doesn't absolve developers from their decision to blindly trust a ridiculous amount of third-parties.

It's not unreasonable to trust large numbers of trustworthy dependency authors. What we lack are the institutions to establish trust reliably.

If packages had to be cryptographically signed by multiple verified authors from a per-organization whitelist in order to enter distribution, that would cut down on the SPOF issue where compromising a single dev is enough to publish multiple malware-infested packages.

"Find large numbers of trustworthy dependency authors in your neighborhood!"

"Large numbers of trustworthy dependency authors in your town can't wait to show you their hottest code paths! Click here for educational livecoding sessions!"