by rzwitserloot | 2025-09-17 12:42:58+00:00
I see two ways to fight supply chain attacks:

* The endless arms race.

But, nevermind. It's been 2 years since Jia Tan and the amount of such 'occurrences' in the npm ecosystem in the past 10 years are bordering on uncountable at this point.

And yet this hack got through? This amateuristic and extremely obvious attempt? The injected function was literally named something like 'raidBitcoinEthWallet' or whatnot.

npm has clearly done absolutely nothing in this regard.

We haven't even gotten to the argument of '... but then hackers will simply use the automated tools themselves and only release stuff that doesn't get flagged'. There's nothing to talk about; npm has done nothing.

Which gets us to:

* Web of trust

This seems to me to be a near perfect way for the big companies that have earned so, so much money using the free FOSS they rely on, to contribute.

They spend the cash to hire a team that reviews FOSS stuff. Entire libraries, sure, but also updates. I think most of them _already do this_, and many will even openly publish issues they found. But they do not publish negative results (they do not publish 'our internal team had a quick look at update XYZ of project ABC and didn't see anything immediately suspicious').

They should start doing that. And repos like npm, maven, CPAN, etcetera should allow either the official maintainer of a library, or anybody, to attach 'assertments of no malicious intent'.

Imagine that npm hosts the following blob of text for NPM hosted projects in addition to the javascript artefacts:

> "I, google dev/security team, hereby vouch for this update in the senses: not-malicious. We have looked at it and did not see anything that we think is suspicious or worse. We make absolutely no promises whatsoever that this library is any good or that this update's changelog accurately represents the changes in it; we merely vouch for the fact that we do not think it was written with malicious intent. We explicitly disavow any legal or financial liability with this statement; we merely stake our good name. We have done this analysis on 2025-09-17 and did it for the artefact with SHA512 hash 1238498123abac. Signed, [public/private key infrastructure based signature, google.com].

And a general rule that google.com/.well-known/vouch-public-key or whatever contains the public key so anybody can check.

Aside from Jia Tan/xz (which always stops any attempt; Jia Tan/xz was so legendary, exactly how the fuck THIS still happens given that massive wakeup call boggles my mind!), every supply chain attack was pretty dang easy to spot; the problem was: Nobody was looking, and everybody configures their build scripts to pick up point updates immediately.

We should update these to 'pick them up after a certain 'vouch' score is reached'. Where everybody can mess with their scoring tables (don't trust google? reduce the value of their vouch to 0).

I think security-crucial 0day fixing updates will not be significantly hampered by this; generally big 0-days are big news and any update that comes out gets analysed to pieces. The vouch signatures would roll in within the hour after posting them.