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.

It IS unreasonable to trust individual humans across the globe in 100+ different jurisdictions pushing code that gets bundled into my application.

How can you guarantee a long trusted developer doesn't have a gun pointed to their head by their authoritarian govt?

In our B2B shop we recently implemented a process where developers cannot add packages from third party sources - only first party like meta, google, spring, etc are allowed. All other boilerplate must be written by developers, and on the rare occasion that a third party dependency is needed it's copied in source form, audited and re-hosted on our internal infrastructure with an internal name.

To justify it to business folks, we presented a simple math where I added the man-hours required to plug the vulnerabilities with the recurring cost of devsecops consultants and found that it's cheaper to reduce development velocity by 20-25%.

Also devsecops should never be offshored due to the scenario I presented in my second statement.