[staticassertion]

It's better than nothing, obviously. But I don't consider `npm install <random-package>` to be equivalent to "RCE as a service", although it's somewhat close. I definitely wouldn't recommend `npm install <actually a random package>`, even in Docker.

I also implemented `insanitybit/cargo-sandbox` using Docker but that doesn't mean I think `insanitybit/cargo-sandbox` is a sufficient barrier to arbitrary code execution, which is why I also had a hardened `cargo add` that looked for typosquatting of package names, and why I think package manager security in general needs to be improved.

You can and should feel better about running commands like that in a container, as I said - seccomp and DAC are security boundaries. I wouldn't say "you should feel good enough to run an open SSH server and publish it for anyone to use".

[quotemstr]

> `npm install <random-package>` to be equivalent to "RCE as a service"

It is literally that. When you write "npm install foo", npm will proceed to install the package called "foo" and then run its installation scripts. It's as if you'd run curl | bash. That npm install script can do literally anything your shell in your terminal can do.

It's not "somewhat close" to RCE. It is literally, exactly, fully, completely RCE delivered as a god damn service to which you connect over the internet.

[staticassertion]

I'm familiar with how build scripts work. As mentioned, I build insanitybit/cargo-sandbox exactly to deal with malicious build scripts.

The reason I consider it different from "I'm opening SSH to the public, anyone can run a shell" is because the attack typically has to either be through a random package, which significantly reduces exposure, or through a compromised package, which requires an additional attack. Basically, somewhere along the way, something else had to go wrong if `npm install <x>` gives an attacker code execution, whereas "I'm giving a shell to the public" involves nothing else going wrong.

Running a command yourself that may include code you don't expect is not, to me, the same as arbitrary code execution. It often implies it but I don't consider those to be identical.

You can disagree with whether or not this meaningfully changes things (I don't feel strongly about it), but then I'd just point to "I don't think it's a sufficient barrier for either threat model but it's still an improvement".

That isn't to downplay the situation at all. Once again,

> that doesn't mean I think `insanitybit/cargo-sandbox` is a sufficient barrier to arbitrary code execution, which is why I also had a hardened `cargo add` that looked for typosquatting of package names, and why I think package manager security in general needs to be improved.

[ashishb]

> definitely wouldn't recommend `npm install <actually a random package>`, even in Docker.

That's not the main attack vector. The attack vector is some random dependency that is used by a lot of popular packages, which you `npm install` indirectly.

[staticassertion]

That doesn't change what I said. It definitely doesn't change what I said about docker as a security boundary.

Again, it's great to run `npm` in a container. I do that too because it's the lowest effort solution I have available.