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.
lucideer · 11m ago
> I'm coming to the unfortunate realizattion that supply chain attacks like this are simply baked into the modern JavaScript ecosystem.
I see this odd take a lot - the automatic narrowing of the scope of an attack to the single ecosystem it occurred in most recently, without any real technical argument for doing so.
What's especially concerning is I see this take in the security industry: mitigations put in place to target e.g. NPM, but are then completely absent for PyPi or Crates. It's bizarre not only because it leaves those ecosystems wide open, but also because the mitigation measures would be very similar (so it would be a minimal amount of additional effort for a large benefit).
jddj · 23m ago
Is the difference between the number of dev dependencies for eg. VueJs (a JavaScript library for marshalling Json Ajax responses into UI) and Htmx (a JavaScript library for marshalling html Ajax responses into UI) meaningful?
There is a difference, but it's not an order of magnitude and neither is a true island.
Granted, deciding not to use JS on the server is reasonable in the context of this article, but for the client htmx is as much a js lib with (dev) dependencies as any other.
Supply chain attacks happen at every layer where there is package management or a vector onto the machine or into the code.
What NPM should do if they really give a shit is start requiring 2FA to publish. Require a scan prior to publish. Sign the package with hard keys and signature. Verify all packages installed match signatures. Semver matching isn’t enough. CRC checks aren’t enough. This has to be baked into packages and package management.
lycopodiopsida · 10m ago
> Until you go get malware
While technically true, I have yet to see Go projects importing thousands of dependencies. They may certainly exist, but are absolutely not the rule. JS projects, however...
We have to realize, that while supply chain attacks can happen everywhere, the best mitigations are development culture and solid standard library - looking at you, cargo.
I am a JS developer by trade and I think that this ecosystem is doomed. I absolutely avoid even installing node on my private machine.
everdrive · 9m ago
Javascript is badly over-used and over-depended on. So many websites just display text and images, but have extremely heavy javascript libraries because that's what people know and that is part of the default, and because it enables all the tracking that powers the modern web. There's no benefit to the user, and we'd be better off without these sites existing if there were really no other choice but to use javascript.
tarruda · 21m ago
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.
coldpie · 12m ago
I don't know Go, but Rust absolutely has the same problem, yes. So does Python. NPM is being discussed here, because it is the topic of the article, but the issue is the ease with which you can pull in unvetted dependencies.
Languages without package managers have a lot more friction to pull in dependencies. You usually rely on the operating system and its package-manager-humans to provide your dependencies; or on primitive OSes like Windows or macOS, you package the dependencies with your application, which involves integrating them into your build and distribution systems. Both of those involve a lot of manual, human effort, which reduces the total number of dependencies (attack points), and makes supply-chain issues like this more likely to be noticed.
The language package managers make it trivial to pull in dozens or hundreds of dependencies, straight from some random source code repository. Your dependencies can add their own dependencies, without you ever knowing. When you have dozens or hundreds of unvetted dependencies, it becomes trivial for an attacker to inject code they control into just one of those dependencies, and then it's game over for every project that includes that one dependency anywhere in their chain.
It's not impossible to do that in the OS-provided or self-managed dependency scenario, but it's much more difficult and will have a much narrower impact.
hsbauauvhabzb · 19m ago
JavaScript does have some pretty insane dependency trees. Most other languages don’t have anywhere near that level of nestedness.
staminade · 6m ago
Don't they?
I just went to crates.io and picked a random newly updated crate, which happened to be pixelfix, which fixes transparent pixels in pngs.
It has six dependencies and hundreds of transient dependencies, may of which appear to be small and highly specific a la left-pad.
Maybe this package isn't representative, but it feels pretty identical to the JS ecosystem.
petcat · 29m ago
Rendering template partials server-side and fetching/loading content updates with HTMX in the browser seems like the best of all worlds at this point.
koakuma-chan · 27m ago
Until you need to write JavaScript?
bdcravens · 13m ago
Then write it. Javascript itself isn't the problem, naive third-party dependencies are.
ehnto · 22m ago
But that's the neat part, you don't!
koakuma-chan · 20m ago
Until you have to.
baq · 23m ago
Which should be much less than what’s customary?
philipwhiuk · 25m ago
HTMX is full of JavaScript. Server-side-rendering without JavaScript is just back to the stuff Perl and PHP give you.
bdcravens · 10m ago
I don't think the point is to avoid Javascript, but to avoid depending on a random number of third-parties.
> Server-side-rendering without JavaScript is just back to the stuff Perl and PHP give you.
As well as Ruby, Python, Go, etc.
Meneth · 6m ago
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.
homebrewer · 17m ago
When the left-pad debacle happened, one commenter here said of a well known npm maintainer something to the effect of that he's an "author of 600 npm packages, and 1200 lines of JavaScript".
Not much has changed since then. The best counter-example I know is esbuild, which is a fully featured bundler/minifier/etc that has zero external dependencies except for the Go stdlib + one package maintained by the Go project itself:
Other "next generation" projects are trading one problematic ecosystem for another. When you study dependency chains of e.g. biomejs and swc, it looks pretty good:
Replacing the tire fire of eslint (and its hundreds to low thousands of dependencies) with zero of them! Very encouraging, until you find the Rust source:
I think as these projects gain more momentum, we will see similar things cropping up in the cargo ecosystem.
Does anyone know of other major projects written in as strict a style as esbuild?
jbd0 · 41m ago
I knew npm was a train wreck when I first used it years ago and it pulled in literally hundreds of dependencies for a simple app. I avoid anything that uses it like the plague.
epolanski · 25m ago
"I knew you weren't a great engineer the moment you started pulling dependencies for a simple app"
You realize my point right? People are taught to not reinvent the wheel at work (mostly for good reasons) so that's what they do, me and you included.
You ain't gonna be bothered to write html and manual manipulation, the people that will give you libraries to do so won't be bothered reimplementing parsers and file watchers, file watcher writers won't be bothered reimplementing file system utils, file system utils developers won't be bothered reimplementing structured cloning or event loops, etc, etc.
I myself just the other day had the task of converting HTML to markdown, because I don't remember whether it was Jira or Github APIs that returns comments as HTML and despite it being mostly few hours of work that would get us 90% there everybody was in favor of pulling a dependency to do so (with its own dependencies) and thus further exposing our application to those risks.
komali2 · 4m ago
Pause, you could write an HTML to markdown library in half a day? Like, 4 hours? Or 12? Either way damn
epolanski · 3m ago
One that gets me 90% there would take me few hours, one that gets me 99% there few months, which is why eventually people would rather pull a dependency.
oVerde · 40m ago
So basically you live JavaScript free?
Xelbair · 34m ago
as much as i can yes.
I try to avoid JS, as it is a horrible language, by design. That does include TS, but it at least is useable, but barely - because it still tied to JS itself.
diggan · 30m ago
Off-topic, but I love how different programmers think about things, and how nothing really is "correct" or "incorrect". Started thinking about it because for me it's the opposite, JS is an OK and at least usable language, as long as you avoid TS and all that comes with it.
Still, even I who'd call myself a JavaScript developer also try to avoid desktop applications made with just JS :)
Xelbair · 13m ago
JS's issue is that it allows you to run an objectively wrong code without throwing explicit error to the user, it just fails silently or does something magical. Seems innocent, until you realize what we use JS for, other than silly websites or ERP dashboards.
It is full of gotchas that serves 0 purpose nowadays.
Also remember that it is basically a Lisp wearing Java skin on top, originally designed in less than 2 weeks.
Typescript is one of few things that puts safety barrier and sane static error checking that makes JS bearable to use - but it still has to fall down to how JS works in the end so it suffers from same core architectural problems.
diggan · 6m ago
> JS's issue is that it allows you to run an objectively wrong code without throwing explicit error to the user, it just fails silently or does something magical. Seems innocent, until you realize what we use JS for, other than silly websites or ERP dashboards.
What some people see as a fault, others see as a feature :) For me, that's there to prevent entire websites from breaking because some small widget in the bottom right corner breaks, for example. Rather than stopping the entire runtime, it just surfaces that error in the developer tools, but lets the rest to continue working.
Then of course entire web apps crash because one tiny error somewhere (remember seeing a blank page with just some short error text in black in the middle? Those), but that doesn't mean that's the best way of doing things.
> Also remember that it is basically a Lisp wearing Java skin on top
I guess that's why I like it better than TS, that tries to move it away from that. I mainly do Clojure development day-to-day, and static types hardly ever gives me more "safety" than other approaches do. But again, what I do isn't more "correct" than what anyone else does, it's largely based on "It's better for me to program this way".
kaiomagalhaes · 16m ago
out of sincere curiosity, which one is a great programming language to you?
Xelbair · 2m ago
depends on use case, i don't think one language can fit all cases. 100% correctness is required for systems, but it is a hindrance in non-critical systems. or robust type systems require high compilation times which hurt iterating on the codebase.
systems? rust - but it is still far from perfect, too much focus on saving few keystrokes here and there.
general purpose corporate development? c# - despite current direction post .net 5 of stapling together legacy parts of .net framework to .net core. it does most things good enough.
scripting, and just scripting? python.
web? there's only one, bad, option and that's js/ts.
most hated ones are in order: js, go, c++, python.
I mean, it's hard to avoid indirectly using things that use npm, e.g. websites or whatever. But it's pretty easy to never have to run npm on your local machine, yes.
zachrip · 29m ago
I can tell a lot about a dev by the fact that they single out npm/js for this supply chain issue.
brobdingnagians · 14m ago
Lots of languages ecosystems have this problem, but it is especially prominent in JS and lies on a spectrum. For comparison, in the C/C++ ecosystem it is prominent to have libraries advertising that they have zero dependencies and header only or one common major library like Boost.
RUnconcerned · 13m ago
What other language ecosystems have had this happen systematically? This isn't even the first time this month!
lithos · 10m ago
Just more engineering leaning than you. Actual engineers have to analyze their supply chains, and so makes sense they would be baffled by NPM dependency trees that utterly normal projects grow into in the JavaScript ecosystem.
Warning: LLM-generated article, terribly difficult to follow and full of irrelevant details.
gchamonlive · 56m ago
We've seen many reports of supply chain attacks affecting NPM. Are these symptoms of operational complexity, which can affect any such service, or is there something fundamentally wrong with NPM?
hannob · 35m ago
It's actually relatively simple.
Adding dependencies comes with advantages and downsides. You need to strike a balance between them. External libraries can help implement things that you better don't implement yourself, so the answer is certainly not "no dependencies". But there are downsides and risks, and the risks grow with the number of dependencies.
In the world of NPM, people think those simple truths don't apply to them and the downsides and risks of dependencies can be ignored. Then you end up with thousands of transitive dependencies.
They're wrong and learn it the hard way now.
Intermernet · 20m ago
Just spit-balling here, but it seems that the problem is with the pushing to NPM, and distribution from NPM, rather than the concept of NPM. If NPM required some form of cryptographically secure author signing, and didn't distribute un-signed packages, then there is at least a chain of responsibility that can be followed.
liveoneggs · 48m ago
It's the entire blase nature of js development in general.
karel-3d · 12m ago
There is a guy (ljharb) who is literally on TC39 - JavaScript specification committee - who is maintaining like 600 packages full of polyfills/dependencies/utilities.
It's just javascript being javascript.
palmfacehn · 39m ago
Apparently Maven has 61.9M indexed packages. As Java has a decent standard lib, mini libs like leftpad are not contributing to this count. NPM has 3.1M packages. Many are trivially simple. Those stats would suggest that NPM has disproportionately more issues than other services.
I would argue that is only one of the many issues with the JS/TS/NPM ecosystem. Many of the other problems have been normalized. The constant security issues are highly visible.
jsiepkes · 22m ago
> Apparently Maven has 61.9M indexed packages.
Where did you see that number? Maven central says it has about 18 million [1] packages. Maybe with all versions of those 18 million packages there are about 62 million artifacts?
While the Java ecosystem is vastly larger, in Java (with Maven, Gradle, Bazel, etc.) it is not common to use really small libraries. So you end up with vastly less transitive dependencies in your projects.
On Maven, I restrict packages to Spring and Apache. As opposed to NPM, where even big vendors can depend on hundreds of small ones.
skydhash · 20m ago
This. You would expect some of the mature packages to be quite diligent about dependencies, but they are the one pulling random stuff for a minor feature. then the transitive dependencies adds like GBs of files to your project.
DimmieMan · 18m ago
NPM isn’t perfect but no, it’s fundamentally self inflicted.
Community is very happy to pick up helper libraries and by the time you get all the way up the tree in a react framework you have hundreds or even thousands of packages.
If you’re sensible you can be fine just like any other ecosystem, but limited because one wrong package and you’ve just ballooned your dependency tree by hundreds which lowers the value of the ecosystem.
Node doesn’t have a standard library and until recently not even a test runner which certainly doesn’t help.
If your sensible with node or Deno* you’ll somewhat insulated from all this nonsense.
*Deno has linting,formatting,testing & a standard library which is a massive help (and a permission system so packages can’t do whatever they want)
koakuma-chan · 48m ago
> is there something fundamentally wrong with NPM?
Its users don't check who the email is from
dist-epoch · 49m ago
It's just where the users and the juicy targets are.
NPM packages are used by huge Electron apps like Discord, Slack, VS Code, the holy grail would be to somehow slip something inside them.
LeifCarrotson · 11m ago
It's both that and a culture of installing a myriad of constantly-updating, tiny libraries to do basic utility functions. (Not even libraries, they're more like individual pages in individual books).
In our line-of-business .NET app, we have a logger, a database, a unit tester, and a driver for some specialty hardware. We upgrade to the latest version of each external dependency about once per year (every major version) to avoid accruing tech debt. They're all pinned and locally hosted, nuget exists but we (like most .Net developers) don't use it to the extent that npm devs do. We read the changelogs - all four of them! - and manually update.
I understand that the NPM ecosystem works differently from a "batteries included" .Net environment for a desktop app, but it's not just about where the users are. Line of business code in .Net and Java apps process a lot of important data. Slipping a malicious package into pypi could expose all kinds of juicy, proprietary data, but again, it's less about the existence of a package manager and more about when and how you use it.
guidedlight · 42m ago
We don't see these attacks nearly as severe or frequent on Maven, which is a much older package management solution. Maven users would be far more attractive targets given corporates extensively run Java.
mr_toad · 26m ago
Number of packages doesn’t mean much. If you can get your code into just one Javascript package you could have it run on billions of browsers. With Java it’s hard to get the same distribution (although the log4j vulnerability shows it’s not entirely impossible).
ehnto · 41m ago
It is also, in my humble but informed opinion, where you will find the least security concious programs, just because of the breadth of it's use and myriad of deployments.
It's the new pragmatic choice for web apps and so it's everyone is using it, from battle hardened teams to total noobs to people who just don't give a shit. It reminds me of Wordpress from 10 years ago, when it was the goto platform for cheap new websites.
gchamonlive · 10m ago
So do you expect other supply chain services that also supply juicy targets to be affected? I mean, we live in a bubble here in HN, so not seeing something in the front page doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it doesn't happen, but the feeling is that NPM is particularly more vulnerable than other services, correct me if I'm wrong.
anthk · 47m ago
Every NPM turd should be run with bubblewrap or a similar sandbox toolkit at least.
dzink · 10m ago
Malware can spread via packages and it can also spread via poisoned LLMs adding vulnerabilities by inserting contaminated packages trained into the models by public content generation, or deliberate LLM design, or just sloppy developers.
ants_everywhere · 22m ago
This seems like something that can be solved with reproducible builds and ensuring you only deploy from a CI system that verifies along the way.
In fact this blog post appears to be advertising for a system that secures build pipelines.
post-install seems like it shouldn't be necessary anyway, let alone need shell access. What are legitimate JS packages using this for?
homebrewer · 8m ago
From what I've seen, it's either spam, telemetry, or downloading prebuilt binaries. The first two are anti-user and should not exist, the last one isn't really necessary — swc, esbuild, and typescript-go simply split native versions into separate packages, and install just what your system needs.
Use pnpm and whitelist just what you need. It disables all scripts by default.
madeofpalk · 42m ago
My main takeaway from all of these is to stop using tokens, and rely on mechanisms like OIDC to reduce the blast radius of a compromise.
How many tokens do you have lying around in your home directory in plain text, able to be read by anything on your computer running as your user?
diggan · 37m ago
> How many tokens do you have lying around in your home directory in plain text, able to be read by anything on your computer running as your user?
Zero? How many developers have plain-text tokens lying around on disk? Avoiding that been hammered into me from every developer more senior than me since I got involved with professional software development.
madeofpalk · 32m ago
You're sure you don't have something lying around in ~/.config ? Until recently the github cli would just save its refresh token as a plain text file. AWS CLI loves to have secrets sitting around in a file https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/userguide/cli-configu...
diggan · 27m ago
I don't use AWS and looking in ~/.config/gh I see two config files, no plain-text secrets.
With that said, it's not impossible some tool leaks their secrets into ~/.local, ~/.cache or ~/.config I suppose.
I thought they were referencing the common approach of adding environment variables with plaintext secrets to your shell config or as an individual file in $HOME, which been a big no-no for as long as I can remember.
I guess I'd reword it to "I'm not manually putting any cleartext secrets on disk" or something instead, if we wanted it to be 100% accurate.
viraptor · 24m ago
> How many developers have plain-text tokens lying around on disk?
Most of them. Mainly on purpose, (.env files) but many also accidentally. (shell history with tokens in the commands)
pjc50 · 23m ago
Isn't this quite hard to achieve on local systems, where you don't have a CI vault automation to help?
diggan · 5m ago
I don't think so? I don't even know what a "CI vault automation" is, I store my credentials and secrets in 1Password, and use the CLI to get the secrets for the moments they're needed, I do all my development locally and things seem fine.
mewpmewp2 · 36m ago
How do you manage secrets for your projects?
mr_toad · 15m ago
One option is pass, which is a shell script that uses GPG to manage passwords for command line tools. You can put the password store into a git repository if you need to sync it across machines.
diggan · 33m ago
Using a password manager for fetching them when needed. 1Password in my case, but I'm sure any password manager can be used for storing secrets for most programming projects.
mewpmewp2 · 28m ago
Which programming languages/frameworks do you use? Do you use 1Password to load secrets to env where you run whatever thing you are working on? Or does the app load them during boot?
diggan · 25m ago
A bunch, ranging from JS to Clojure and everything in-between, depends on the project.
The approach also depends on the project. There is a bunch of different approaches and I don't think there is one approach that would work for every project, and sometimes I requires some wrangling but takes 5-10 minutes tops.
How long have you been using that method? I didn't feel it's been very popular so far, although it makes a lot of sense. I've always seen people using gitignored .env files/config dirs in projects with many hardcoded credentials.
tormeh · 6m ago
A good habit, but encryption won't save you in all cases because anything you run has access to .bashrc.
Frankly, our desktop OSes are not fit for purpose anymore. It's nuts that everything I run can instantly own my entire user account.
It's the old https://xkcd.com/1200/ . That's from 2013 and what little (Flatpak, etc.) has changed has only changed for end users - not developers.
seanieb · 39m ago
Why did the socket.dev story from last night get flagged off the front page?
Is there a theoretical framework that can prevent this from happening? Proof-carrying code?
viraptor · 31m ago
You can protect yourself using existing tools, but it's not trivial and requires serious custom work. Effectively you want minimal permissions and loud failures.
This is something I'm trying to polish for my system now, but the idea is: yarn (and bundler and others) needs to talk only to the repositories. That means yarn install is only allowed outbound connections to localhost running a proxy for packages. It can only write in tmp, its caches, and the current project's node_packages. It cannot read home files beyond specified ones (like .yarnrc). The alias to yarn strips the cloud credentials. All tokens used for installation are read-only. Then you have to do the same for the projects themselves.
On Linux, selinux can do this. On Mac, you have to fight a long battle with sandbox-exec, but it's kinda maybe working. (If it gained "allow exec with specified profile", it would be so much better)
But you may have guessed from the description so far - it's all very environment dependent, time sink-y, and often annoying. It will explode on issues though - try to touch ~/.aws/credentials for example and yarn will get killed and reported - which is exactly what we want.
But internally? The whole environment would have to be redone from scratch. Right now package installation will run any code it wants. It will compile extensions with gyp which is another way of custom code running. The whole system relies on arbitrary code execution and hopes it's secure. (It will never be) Capabilities are a fun idea, but would have to be seriously improved and scoped to work here.
tarruda · 41m ago
Something similar to Deno's permission system, but operating at a package level instead of a process level.
When declaring dependencies, you'd also declare the permissions of those dependencies. So a package like `tinycolor` would never need network or disk access.
diggan · 39m ago
Probably signatures could alleviate most of these issues, as each publish would require the author to actually sign the artifact, and setup properly with hardware keys, this sort of malware couldn't spread. The NPM CI tokens that don't require 2fa kind of makes it less useful though.
Clojars (run by volunteers AFAIK) been doing signatures since forever, not sure why it's so difficult for Microsoft to follow their own yearly proclamation of "security is our top concern".
Object-capability model / capability-based security.
Do not let code to have access to things it's not supposed to access.
It's actually that simple. If you implemented a function which formats a string, it should not have access to `readFile`, for example.
Retrofitting it into JS isn't possible, though, as language is way too dynamic - self-modifying code, reflection, etc, means there's no isolation between modules.
In a language which is less dynamic it might be as easy as making a white-list for imports.
pjc50 · 20m ago
People have tried this, but in practice it's quite hard to do because then you have to start treating individual functions as security boundaries - if you can't readFile, just find a function which does it for you.
The situation gets better in monadic environments (can't readFile without the IO monad, and you cant' call anything which would read it).
There are, but they have huge performance or usability penalties.
Stuff like intents "this is a math library, it is not allowed to access the network or filesystem".
At a higher level, you have app sandboxing, like on phones or Apple/Windows store. Sandboxed desktop apps are quite hated by developers - my app should be allowed to do whatever the fuck it wants.
IshKebab · 36m ago
Do they actually have huge performance penalties in Javascript?
I would have thought it wouldn't be too hard to design a capability system in JS. I bet someone has done it already.
Of course, it's not going to be compatible with any existing JS libraries. That's the problem.
killerstorm · 31m ago
You can do that by screening module imports with zero runtime penalty.
cynicalsecurity · 16m ago
Unless npm infrastructure will be thoroughly curated and moderated, it always going to stay a high risk threat.
freakynit · 54m ago
New day, new npm malware. Sigh..
motorest · 48m ago
> New day, new npm malware. Sigh..
This. But the problem seems to go way deeper than npm or whatever package manager is used. I mean, why is anyone consuming a package like colors or tinycolors? Do projects really need to drag in a random dependency to handle these usecases?
diggan · 44m ago
So rather than focusing on how Microsoft/npm et al can prevent similar situations in the future, you chose to think about what relevance/importance each individual package has?
There will always be packages that for some people are "but why?" but for others are "thank god I don't have to deal with that myself". Sure, colors and whatnot are tiny packages we probably could do without, but what are you really suggesting here? Someone sits and reviews every published package and rejects it if the package doesn't fit your ideal?
freakynit · 12m ago
You're partly right.
But the issue isn't just about the “thank god I don't have to deal with that myself” perspective. It's more about asking: do you actually need a dependency, or do you simply want it?
A lot of developers, especially newer ones, tend to blur that distinction. The result is an inflated dependency tree that unnecessarily increases the attack surface for malware.
The "ship fast at all costs" mindset that dominates many startups only makes this worse, since it encourages pulling in packages without much thought to long-term risk.
Aikido - https://www.aikido.dev/blog/s1ngularity-nx-attackers-strike-...
Socket - https://socket.dev/blog/ongoing-supply-chain-attack-targets-...
Ox - https://www.ox.security/blog/npm-2-0-hack-40-npm-packages-hi...
Safety - https://www.getsafety.com/blog-posts/shai-hulud-npm-attack
Phoenix - https://phoenix.security/npm-tinycolor-compromise/
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.
I see this odd take a lot - the automatic narrowing of the scope of an attack to the single ecosystem it occurred in most recently, without any real technical argument for doing so.
What's especially concerning is I see this take in the security industry: mitigations put in place to target e.g. NPM, but are then completely absent for PyPi or Crates. It's bizarre not only because it leaves those ecosystems wide open, but also because the mitigation measures would be very similar (so it would be a minimal amount of additional effort for a large benefit).
There is a difference, but it's not an order of magnitude and neither is a true island.
Granted, deciding not to use JS on the server is reasonable in the context of this article, but for the client htmx is as much a js lib with (dev) dependencies as any other.
https://github.com/bigskysoftware/htmx/blob/master/package.j...
https://github.com/vuejs/core/blob/main/package.json
Supply chain attacks happen at every layer where there is package management or a vector onto the machine or into the code.
What NPM should do if they really give a shit is start requiring 2FA to publish. Require a scan prior to publish. Sign the package with hard keys and signature. Verify all packages installed match signatures. Semver matching isn’t enough. CRC checks aren’t enough. This has to be baked into packages and package management.
While technically true, I have yet to see Go projects importing thousands of dependencies. They may certainly exist, but are absolutely not the rule. JS projects, however...
We have to realize, that while supply chain attacks can happen everywhere, the best mitigations are development culture and solid standard library - looking at you, cargo.
I am a JS developer by trade and I think that this ecosystem is doomed. I absolutely avoid even installing node on my private machine.
Unless this lack of scrutiny is exclusive to JavaScript ecosystem, then this attack could just as well have happened in Rust or Golang.
Languages without package managers have a lot more friction to pull in dependencies. You usually rely on the operating system and its package-manager-humans to provide your dependencies; or on primitive OSes like Windows or macOS, you package the dependencies with your application, which involves integrating them into your build and distribution systems. Both of those involve a lot of manual, human effort, which reduces the total number of dependencies (attack points), and makes supply-chain issues like this more likely to be noticed.
The language package managers make it trivial to pull in dozens or hundreds of dependencies, straight from some random source code repository. Your dependencies can add their own dependencies, without you ever knowing. When you have dozens or hundreds of unvetted dependencies, it becomes trivial for an attacker to inject code they control into just one of those dependencies, and then it's game over for every project that includes that one dependency anywhere in their chain.
It's not impossible to do that in the OS-provided or self-managed dependency scenario, but it's much more difficult and will have a much narrower impact.
I just went to crates.io and picked a random newly updated crate, which happened to be pixelfix, which fixes transparent pixels in pngs.
It has six dependencies and hundreds of transient dependencies, may of which appear to be small and highly specific a la left-pad.
https://crates.io/crates/pixelfix/0.1.1/dependencies
Maybe this package isn't representative, but it feels pretty identical to the JS ecosystem.
> Server-side-rendering without JavaScript is just back to the stuff Perl and PHP give you.
As well as Ruby, Python, Go, etc.
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.
Not much has changed since then. The best counter-example I know is esbuild, which is a fully featured bundler/minifier/etc that has zero external dependencies except for the Go stdlib + one package maintained by the Go project itself:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/esbuild?activeTab=dependencies
https://github.com/evanw/esbuild/blob/755da31752d759f1ea70b8...
Other "next generation" projects are trading one problematic ecosystem for another. When you study dependency chains of e.g. biomejs and swc, it looks pretty good:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/@biomejs/biome/v/latest?active...
https://www.npmjs.com/package/@swc/types?activeTab=dependenc...
Replacing the tire fire of eslint (and its hundreds to low thousands of dependencies) with zero of them! Very encouraging, until you find the Rust source:
https://github.com/biomejs/biome/blob/a0039fd5457d0df18242fe...
https://github.com/swc-project/swc/blob/6c54969d69551f516032...
I think as these projects gain more momentum, we will see similar things cropping up in the cargo ecosystem.
Does anyone know of other major projects written in as strict a style as esbuild?
You realize my point right? People are taught to not reinvent the wheel at work (mostly for good reasons) so that's what they do, me and you included.
You ain't gonna be bothered to write html and manual manipulation, the people that will give you libraries to do so won't be bothered reimplementing parsers and file watchers, file watcher writers won't be bothered reimplementing file system utils, file system utils developers won't be bothered reimplementing structured cloning or event loops, etc, etc.
I myself just the other day had the task of converting HTML to markdown, because I don't remember whether it was Jira or Github APIs that returns comments as HTML and despite it being mostly few hours of work that would get us 90% there everybody was in favor of pulling a dependency to do so (with its own dependencies) and thus further exposing our application to those risks.
I try to avoid JS, as it is a horrible language, by design. That does include TS, but it at least is useable, but barely - because it still tied to JS itself.
Still, even I who'd call myself a JavaScript developer also try to avoid desktop applications made with just JS :)
It is full of gotchas that serves 0 purpose nowadays.
Also remember that it is basically a Lisp wearing Java skin on top, originally designed in less than 2 weeks.
Typescript is one of few things that puts safety barrier and sane static error checking that makes JS bearable to use - but it still has to fall down to how JS works in the end so it suffers from same core architectural problems.
What some people see as a fault, others see as a feature :) For me, that's there to prevent entire websites from breaking because some small widget in the bottom right corner breaks, for example. Rather than stopping the entire runtime, it just surfaces that error in the developer tools, but lets the rest to continue working.
Then of course entire web apps crash because one tiny error somewhere (remember seeing a blank page with just some short error text in black in the middle? Those), but that doesn't mean that's the best way of doing things.
> Also remember that it is basically a Lisp wearing Java skin on top
I guess that's why I like it better than TS, that tries to move it away from that. I mainly do Clojure development day-to-day, and static types hardly ever gives me more "safety" than other approaches do. But again, what I do isn't more "correct" than what anyone else does, it's largely based on "It's better for me to program this way".
systems? rust - but it is still far from perfect, too much focus on saving few keystrokes here and there.
general purpose corporate development? c# - despite current direction post .net 5 of stapling together legacy parts of .net framework to .net core. it does most things good enough.
scripting, and just scripting? python.
web? there's only one, bad, option and that's js/ts.
most hated ones are in order: js, go, c++, python.
go is extremely infuriating, there was a submission on HN that perfectly encapsulated my feelings about it after writing it for a while: https://fasterthanli.me/articles/i-want-off-mr-golangs-wild-...
Adding dependencies comes with advantages and downsides. You need to strike a balance between them. External libraries can help implement things that you better don't implement yourself, so the answer is certainly not "no dependencies". But there are downsides and risks, and the risks grow with the number of dependencies.
In the world of NPM, people think those simple truths don't apply to them and the downsides and risks of dependencies can be ignored. Then you end up with thousands of transitive dependencies.
They're wrong and learn it the hard way now.
It's just javascript being javascript.
I would argue that is only one of the many issues with the JS/TS/NPM ecosystem. Many of the other problems have been normalized. The constant security issues are highly visible.
Where did you see that number? Maven central says it has about 18 million [1] packages. Maybe with all versions of those 18 million packages there are about 62 million artifacts?
While the Java ecosystem is vastly larger, in Java (with Maven, Gradle, Bazel, etc.) it is not common to use really small libraries. So you end up with vastly less transitive dependencies in your projects.
[1] https://mvnrepository.com/repos/central
Community is very happy to pick up helper libraries and by the time you get all the way up the tree in a react framework you have hundreds or even thousands of packages.
If you’re sensible you can be fine just like any other ecosystem, but limited because one wrong package and you’ve just ballooned your dependency tree by hundreds which lowers the value of the ecosystem.
Node doesn’t have a standard library and until recently not even a test runner which certainly doesn’t help.
If your sensible with node or Deno* you’ll somewhat insulated from all this nonsense.
*Deno has linting,formatting,testing & a standard library which is a massive help (and a permission system so packages can’t do whatever they want)
Its users don't check who the email is from
NPM packages are used by huge Electron apps like Discord, Slack, VS Code, the holy grail would be to somehow slip something inside them.
In our line-of-business .NET app, we have a logger, a database, a unit tester, and a driver for some specialty hardware. We upgrade to the latest version of each external dependency about once per year (every major version) to avoid accruing tech debt. They're all pinned and locally hosted, nuget exists but we (like most .Net developers) don't use it to the extent that npm devs do. We read the changelogs - all four of them! - and manually update.
I understand that the NPM ecosystem works differently from a "batteries included" .Net environment for a desktop app, but it's not just about where the users are. Line of business code in .Net and Java apps process a lot of important data. Slipping a malicious package into pypi could expose all kinds of juicy, proprietary data, but again, it's less about the existence of a package manager and more about when and how you use it.
It's the new pragmatic choice for web apps and so it's everyone is using it, from battle hardened teams to total noobs to people who just don't give a shit. It reminds me of Wordpress from 10 years ago, when it was the goto platform for cheap new websites.
In fact this blog post appears to be advertising for a system that secures build pipelines.
Google has written up some about their internal approach here: https://cloud.google.com/docs/security/binary-authorization-...
Use pnpm and whitelist just what you need. It disables all scripts by default.
How many tokens do you have lying around in your home directory in plain text, able to be read by anything on your computer running as your user?
Zero? How many developers have plain-text tokens lying around on disk? Avoiding that been hammered into me from every developer more senior than me since I got involved with professional software development.
With that said, it's not impossible some tool leaks their secrets into ~/.local, ~/.cache or ~/.config I suppose.
I thought they were referencing the common approach of adding environment variables with plaintext secrets to your shell config or as an individual file in $HOME, which been a big no-no for as long as I can remember.
I guess I'd reword it to "I'm not manually putting any cleartext secrets on disk" or something instead, if we wanted it to be 100% accurate.
Most of them. Mainly on purpose, (.env files) but many also accidentally. (shell history with tokens in the commands)
The approach also depends on the project. There is a bunch of different approaches and I don't think there is one approach that would work for every project, and sometimes I requires some wrangling but takes 5-10 minutes tops.
Some basic information about how you could make it work with 1Password: https://developer.1password.com/docs/cli/secrets-environment...
Frankly, our desktop OSes are not fit for purpose anymore. It's nuts that everything I run can instantly own my entire user account.
It's the old https://xkcd.com/1200/ . That's from 2013 and what little (Flatpak, etc.) has changed has only changed for end users - not developers.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45256210
This is something I'm trying to polish for my system now, but the idea is: yarn (and bundler and others) needs to talk only to the repositories. That means yarn install is only allowed outbound connections to localhost running a proxy for packages. It can only write in tmp, its caches, and the current project's node_packages. It cannot read home files beyond specified ones (like .yarnrc). The alias to yarn strips the cloud credentials. All tokens used for installation are read-only. Then you have to do the same for the projects themselves.
On Linux, selinux can do this. On Mac, you have to fight a long battle with sandbox-exec, but it's kinda maybe working. (If it gained "allow exec with specified profile", it would be so much better)
But you may have guessed from the description so far - it's all very environment dependent, time sink-y, and often annoying. It will explode on issues though - try to touch ~/.aws/credentials for example and yarn will get killed and reported - which is exactly what we want.
But internally? The whole environment would have to be redone from scratch. Right now package installation will run any code it wants. It will compile extensions with gyp which is another way of custom code running. The whole system relies on arbitrary code execution and hopes it's secure. (It will never be) Capabilities are a fun idea, but would have to be seriously improved and scoped to work here.
When declaring dependencies, you'd also declare the permissions of those dependencies. So a package like `tinycolor` would never need network or disk access.
Clojars (run by volunteers AFAIK) been doing signatures since forever, not sure why it's so difficult for Microsoft to follow their own yearly proclamation of "security is our top concern".
> The NPM CI tokens that don't require 2fa kind of makes it less useful though
Use OIDC to publish packages instead of having tokens around that can be stolen or leaked https://docs.npmjs.com/trusted-publishers
Do not let code to have access to things it's not supposed to access.
It's actually that simple. If you implemented a function which formats a string, it should not have access to `readFile`, for example.
Retrofitting it into JS isn't possible, though, as language is way too dynamic - self-modifying code, reflection, etc, means there's no isolation between modules.
In a language which is less dynamic it might be as easy as making a white-list for imports.
The situation gets better in monadic environments (can't readFile without the IO monad, and you cant' call anything which would read it).
Stuff like intents "this is a math library, it is not allowed to access the network or filesystem".
At a higher level, you have app sandboxing, like on phones or Apple/Windows store. Sandboxed desktop apps are quite hated by developers - my app should be allowed to do whatever the fuck it wants.
I would have thought it wouldn't be too hard to design a capability system in JS. I bet someone has done it already.
Of course, it's not going to be compatible with any existing JS libraries. That's the problem.
This. But the problem seems to go way deeper than npm or whatever package manager is used. I mean, why is anyone consuming a package like colors or tinycolors? Do projects really need to drag in a random dependency to handle these usecases?
There will always be packages that for some people are "but why?" but for others are "thank god I don't have to deal with that myself". Sure, colors and whatnot are tiny packages we probably could do without, but what are you really suggesting here? Someone sits and reviews every published package and rejects it if the package doesn't fit your ideal?
But the issue isn't just about the “thank god I don't have to deal with that myself” perspective. It's more about asking: do you actually need a dependency, or do you simply want it?
A lot of developers, especially newer ones, tend to blur that distinction. The result is an inflated dependency tree that unnecessarily increases the attack surface for malware.
The "ship fast at all costs" mindset that dominates many startups only makes this worse, since it encourages pulling in packages without much thought to long-term risk.