[newpavlov]

I think there is only one proper solution to the security problem of transitive dependencies: an open database of vetted/rejected libraries and tooling which would help to pull dependency versions according to configured rules.

For example, by trusting several big players such as Rust Foundation, Servo, Mozilla, Google, Facebook, etc. (developers will decide for themselves whom exactly they trust) who would manually review dependencies used by them we will be able to cover the most important parts of the ecosystem and developers will be able to review more minor dependencies in their projects themselves. cargo-crev + cargo-audit come somewhat close to what is needed, everything else is a matter of adoption.

Capabilities and other automated tools can help immensely with manual reviews, but can not replace them completely, especially in compiled languages like Rust.

>It’s easy for me to forget that the trust I place in those 20 direct dependencies is extended unchanged to the 161 indirect dependencies.

Unfortunately, when people mention such numbers they commonly do not account for the difference between "number of libraries in the dependency tree" and "number of groups responsible for the dependency tree". In practice, the latter number is often significantly smaller than the former. In other words, many projects (at least in the Rust world) lean towards the "micro-crate" approach, meaning that one group may be responsible for 20 crate in the dependency tree, which does not make security risks 20x bigger.

[neipat]

I'm building a company in this area that looks like something similar. The goal is to provide a safer source for open source application dependencies that augments/replaces e.g. NPM.

We take open source dependencies and:

- Patch vulnerabilities, including in transitive dependencies, even for old or EoL versions that teams may be on

- Continuously vet new versions that are published for malware; and don't bring them into the registry if so

- Inline dependencies that don't need to be separate packages (e.g. fold in trim-newlines, a 1-line NPM package, into a parent package) to simplify dependency trees

This is then available to developers as a one line change to switch to in e.g. package.json. Once you switch, you no longer need to manually review packages or do any of this scanning/upgrading/vulnerability management work, since you can trust and set policies on the registry.

We're in the very early days and working with a few future-minded developers to get feedback on the design. If you're interested, I'd love to share more! Please email me at [e-mail]

[newpavlov]

Sounds interesting! But I work with Rust, so your project is outside of my direct area of interest.

If I am to suggest something, I think you should consider opening some parts of your product, e.g. you could publish your package reviews with an N-months delay and accept public reviews from the community with some vetting process on top.

[neipat]

That's a great point. We've been thinking through how we work with open source maintainers and the community to crowdsource reviews or usage information.

[Ygg2]

What is "numbers of groups responsible" in context of Cargo? Github orgs?

[newpavlov]

Roughly, yes. But it may be just one developer such as burntsushi.

For example, by adding the aes-gcm crate to your dependencies you pull whooping 19 dependencies in total, but 13 of those are part of the RustCrypto org and remaining 5 are fairly "foundational" (libc, getrandom, cfg-if, typenum, subtle), meaning that security implications of such "big" dependency tree are not as bad as they seem at first glance.