Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by CaptainOfCoit 275 days ago
> That's exactly npm's problem, though.

I don't think that's the problem with npm. The problem with npm is that no packages are signed, at all, so it ends up trivial for hackers to push new package versions, which they obviously shouldn't be able to do.
1 comments
carols10cents 275 days ago
Since Shai-Hulud scanned maintainers' computers, if the signing key was stored there too (without a password), couldn't the attackers have published signed packages?

That is, how does signing prevent publishing of malware, exactly?

link
CaptainOfCoit 274 days ago
> if the signing key was stored there too (without a password), couldn't the attackers have published signed packages?

Yeah, of course. Also if they hosted their private key for the signature on their public blog, anyone could use it for publishing.

But for the sake of the argument, why don't we assume people are correctly using the thing we're talking about?

link
lelanthran 274 days ago
In past comments I said that a quick win would be to lean on certificates; those can't easily be forged once a certificate is accepted.
link
yawaramin 275 days ago
How did Shai-Hulud get access to maintainers' computers?
link