
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
This isn't a story about NPM even though it's inspired by NPM. Twice. The maintainer of the "colors" NPM library intentionally changed the library's behavior from its expected functionality to printing garbage messages. The library was exhibiting the type of malicious activity that typically comes from a compromised package. Only this time users of the library, which easily number in the thousands, discovered this was sabotage by the package maintainer himself. This opens up a broader discussion on supply chain security than just provenance. How do we ensure open source tools receive the investments they need -- security or otherwise? For that matter, how do we ensure internal tools receive the investments they need? Log4j was just one recent example of seeing old code appear in surprising places.
Segment resources
- https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dev-corrupts-npm-libs-colors-and-faker-breaking-thousands-of-apps/
- https://www.zdnet.com/article/when-open-source-developers-go-bad/
- https://www.zdnet.com/article/log4j-after-white-house-meeting-google-calls-for-list-of-critical-open-source-projects/
- https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/17/open_source_closed_wallets_big/
- https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/making-open-source-software-safer-and-more-secure/
- https://docs.linuxfoundation.org/lfx/security/onboarding-your-project
- https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/rage-quit-coder-unpublished-17-lines-of-javascript-and-broke-the-internet/
Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/asw for all the latest episodes!
Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw180
4.8
44 ratings
This isn't a story about NPM even though it's inspired by NPM. Twice. The maintainer of the "colors" NPM library intentionally changed the library's behavior from its expected functionality to printing garbage messages. The library was exhibiting the type of malicious activity that typically comes from a compromised package. Only this time users of the library, which easily number in the thousands, discovered this was sabotage by the package maintainer himself. This opens up a broader discussion on supply chain security than just provenance. How do we ensure open source tools receive the investments they need -- security or otherwise? For that matter, how do we ensure internal tools receive the investments they need? Log4j was just one recent example of seeing old code appear in surprising places.
Segment resources
- https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dev-corrupts-npm-libs-colors-and-faker-breaking-thousands-of-apps/
- https://www.zdnet.com/article/when-open-source-developers-go-bad/
- https://www.zdnet.com/article/log4j-after-white-house-meeting-google-calls-for-list-of-critical-open-source-projects/
- https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/17/open_source_closed_wallets_big/
- https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/making-open-source-software-safer-and-more-secure/
- https://docs.linuxfoundation.org/lfx/security/onboarding-your-project
- https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/rage-quit-coder-unpublished-17-lines-of-javascript-and-broke-the-internet/
Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/asw for all the latest episodes!
Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw180
7,898 Listeners
365 Listeners
626 Listeners
366 Listeners
265 Listeners
1,009 Listeners
7,879 Listeners
166 Listeners
181 Listeners
314 Listeners
74 Listeners
58 Listeners
127 Listeners
38 Listeners
43 Listeners