Skip to content

Reference to malicious package monorepo-symlink-test causing security scan to fail #288

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
reify-thomas-smith opened this issue Jul 27, 2022 · 4 comments

Comments

@reify-thomas-smith
Copy link

The file test/resolver/multirepo/package.json is causing JFrog's vulnerability scanner to flag resolve because the name field is the name of a malicious package. This is definitely JFrog's fault and not resolve's, but if it's breaking for us, it's probably breaking for others.

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Jul 28, 2022

Indeed; I'm glad resolve is exposing the many "security" tools out there that are broken.

A scanner that even looks at package files that are only used in development of the package, and never referenced in production, will produce lots of false positives that distract from meaningful reports.

In particular, the package has private: true, and thus has no relationship to https://www.npmjs.com/package/monorepo-symlink-test, so I'd report this to JFrog with some urgency.

@ljharb ljharb closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jul 28, 2022
@oscarduignan
Copy link

oscarduignan commented Aug 2, 2022

@ljharb with this, could the test files be excluded from the package in npm if they don't need to be distributed? Assuming they are from looking into the package using unpkg https://unpkg.com/browse/[email protected]/test/

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Aug 2, 2022

Yep! They forever do, because npm explore foo && npm install && npm test should always work.

@oscarduignan
Copy link

cool, thank you @ljharb for the quick response 🙌

ljharb added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2023
…d security scanners

Fixes #319.
Fixes #318.
Fixes #317.
Fixes #314.
Closes #313.
Fixes #312.
Fixes #311.
Fixes #310.
Fixes #309.
Fixes #306.
Fixes #305.
Fixes #304.
Fixes #303.
Fixes #291.
Fixes #288.
ljharb added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2023
    Fixes #319.
    Fixes #318.
    Fixes #317.
    Fixes #314.
    Closes #313.
    Fixes #312.
    Fixes #311.
    Fixes #310.
    Fixes #309.
    Fixes #306.
    Fixes #305.
    Fixes #304.
    Fixes #303.
    Fixes #291.
    Fixes #288.
ljharb added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2023
    Fixes #319.
    Fixes #318.
    Fixes #317.
    Fixes #314.
    Closes #313.
    Fixes #312.
    Fixes #311.
    Fixes #310.
    Fixes #309.
    Fixes #306.
    Fixes #305.
    Fixes #304.
    Fixes #303.
    Fixes #291.
    Fixes #288.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants