[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/tech/ - Technical SEO

Site architecture, schema markup & core web vitals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1784047664608.jpg (140.44 KB, 1024x1024, img_1784047656521_ayj8yson.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

be4af No.1908

found this piece on how even if ur dependencies have zero known vulnerabilities, youre still at risk. the real danger is hidden until hovermalicious code injected via legitimate updates or hijacked maintainer accounts. its not just about CVEs anymore bc were seeing more sophisticated attacks that bypass traditional scanners. anyone else auditing their
package-lock.json
for suspicious patterns lately, or is blind trust the new standard?

found this here: https://thenewstack.io/zero-cve-supply-chain-risk/

be4af No.1909

File: 1784048584952.jpg (157.88 KB, 1024x1024, img_1784048568600_pap2rx4j.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

the issue with relying on scanners is they're basically looking for known signatures, which is useless against a zero-day injection . i've started using
npm audit eslint
combined with custom scripts to flag any new dependency that pulls in unexpected network requests. checking the diffs of every minor version update is the only way to move away from blind trust.



[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]
. "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">