|
I have a question. I'm curious. I see two comments here on this subject, complaining about the churn of dealing with security advisories. Sure, it's churn. ... but isn't this problem dwarfed by the implications of having used a compromised package? Presumably, if the project you work on has a compromised dependency, it means you've ran it on your development machine. Presumably, you might have a couple of secrets (private keys, AWS credentials and other whatnots) lying around, which might have leaked to a malicious actor. Wouldn't you need to review all the development, staging and production machines for all your projects and rotate secrets everywhere? Wouldn't it be, by far, the biggest churn involved, so much that mentioning "npm audit" difficulties not worth mentioning at all, because of the ridiculous comparison in effort magnitude? |
Since it's most probably false, the implications you refer to remain hypothetical, while the cost of cleaning up after npm's decision are measured in real M$s. And I think that's the real issue here.
I am not saying that we should give up on security altogether, but now there is so much toil attached to managing security, compliance and such aspects of the development lifecycle, that at some point managing all these aspects will outweigh all productivity a dev can bring to the project.
It's admittedly a hyperbole, but at that point the whole development procedure would simply become a pointless exercise without any benefit to anyone.