Skip to content

Comment on Can we get the benefits of transitive dependencies without undermining security?parent

Comments

I'm building a company in this area that looks like something similar. The goal is to provide a safer source for open source application dependencies that augments/replaces e.g. NPM.

We take open source dependencies and:

- Patch vulnerabilities, including in transitive dependencies, even for old or EoL versions that teams may be on

- Continuously vet new versions that are published for malware; and don't bring them into the registry if so

- Inline dependencies that don't need to be separate packages (e.g. fold in trim-newlines, a 1-line NPM package, into a parent package) to simplify dependency trees

This is then available to developers as a one line change to switch to in e.g. package.json. Once you switch, you no longer need to manually review packages or do any of this scanning/upgrading/vulnerability management work, since you can trust and set policies on the registry.

We're in the very early days and working with a few future-minded developers to get feedback on the design. If you're interested, I'd love to share more! Please email me at neil@syntra.io

Sounds interesting! But I work with Rust, so your project is outside of my direct area of interest.

If I am to suggest something, I think you should consider opening some parts of your product, e.g. you could publish your package reviews with an N-months delay and accept public reviews from the community with some vetting process on top.

That's a great point. We've been thinking through how we work with open source maintainers and the community to crowdsource reviews or usage information.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.