←back to thread

1208 points jamesberthoty | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kelnos ◴[] No.45266878[source]
As a user of npm-hosted packages in my own projects, I'm not really sure what to do to protect myself. It's not feasible for me to audit every single one of my dependencies, and every one of my dependencies' dependencies, and so on. Even if I had the time to do that, I'm not a typescript/javascript expert, and I'm certain there are a lot of obfuscated things that an attacker could do that I wouldn't realize was embedded malware.

One thing I was thinking of was sort of a "delayed" mode to updating my own dependencies. The idea is that when I want to update my dependencies, instead of updating to the absolute latest version available of everything, it updates to versions that were released no more than some configurable amount of time ago. As a maintainer, I could decide that a package that's been out in the wild for at least 6 weeks is less likely to have unnoticed malware in it than one that was released just yesterday.

Obviously this is not a perfect fix, as there's no guarantee that the delay time I specify is enough for any particular package. And I'd want the tool to present me with options sometimes: e.g. if my current version of a dep has a vulnerability, and the fix for it came out a few days ago, I might choose to update to it (better eliminate the known vulnerability than refuse to update for fear of an unknown one) rather than wait until it's older than my threshold.

replies(35): >>45266995 #>>45267024 #>>45267360 #>>45267489 #>>45267600 #>>45267697 #>>45267722 #>>45267967 #>>45268218 #>>45268503 #>>45268654 #>>45268764 #>>45269143 #>>45269397 #>>45269398 #>>45269524 #>>45269799 #>>45269945 #>>45270082 #>>45270083 #>>45270420 #>>45270708 #>>45270917 #>>45270938 #>>45272063 #>>45272548 #>>45273074 #>>45273291 #>>45273321 #>>45273387 #>>45273513 #>>45273935 #>>45274324 #>>45275452 #>>45277692 #
gameman144 ◴[] No.45267024[source]
> It's not feasible for me to audit every single one of my dependencies, and every one of my dependencies' dependencies

I think this is a good argument for reducing your dependency count as much as possible, and keeping them to well-known and trustworthy (security-wise) creators.

"Not-invented-here" syndrome is counterproductive if you can trust all authors, but in an uncontrolled or unaudited ecosystem it's actually pretty sensible.

replies(8): >>45267054 #>>45267101 #>>45267444 #>>45268170 #>>45268880 #>>45270337 #>>45273381 #>>45273796 #
Ajedi32 ◴[] No.45267054[source]
If it's not feasible to audit every single dependency, it's probably even less feasible to rewrite every single dependency from scratch. Avoiding that duplicated work is precisely why we import dependencies in the first place.
replies(11): >>45267090 #>>45267094 #>>45267132 #>>45267222 #>>45267415 #>>45267471 #>>45268298 #>>45269164 #>>45270175 #>>45270363 #>>45270519 #
zelphirkalt ◴[] No.45267415[source]
Most dependencies do much more than we need from them. Often it means we only need one or a few functions from them. This means one doesn't need to rewrite whole dependencies usually. Don't use dependencies for things you can trivially write yourself, and use them for cases where it would be too much work to write yourself.
replies(3): >>45267701 #>>45271035 #>>45271065 #
vFunct ◴[] No.45271065[source]
I'm using LLMs to write stuff that would normally be in dependencies, mostly because I don't want to learn how to use the dependency, and writing a new one from scratch is really easy with LLMs.
replies(1): >>45272434 #
1. baq ◴[] No.45272434{3}[source]
Age of bespoke software is here. Did you have any hard to spot non-obvious bugs in these code units?