After an incident as widely publicized as Axios, I'd expect dependency auditing, credential rotation, and public incident communication to all be carried out with much more urgency. And if they were going to send this out to all of their users (as they should), I would expect _that_ to happen shortly after publishing the post (why wait 11 days???).
> At that time, a GitHub Actions workflow we use in the macOS app-signing process downloaded and executed a malicious version of Axios (version 1.14.1)
So if I understand this correctly their GH Actions is free to upgrade the package just like that? Is this normal practice or it’s just shifting blame?
Side note. I'm sure many of you know this, but for those who don't, setting min-release-age=7 in .npmrc (needs npm 11.10+), would have made the malicious axios (@1.14.1 and @0.30.4) invisible to npm install (removed within ~3h). Same for ua-parser-js (caught within hours) and node-ipc (caught in days). It wouldn't have prevented event-stream (over 2 months), but you can't win them all.
Some examples (hat tip to [2]):
~/.config/uv/uv.toml
exclude-newer = "7 days"
~/.npmrc
min-release-age=7 # days
~/Library/Preferences/pnpm/rc
minimum-release-age=10080 # minutes
~/.bunfig.toml
[install]
minimumReleaseAge = 604800 # seconds
p.s. sorry for the plug, but we released a free tool ([3]) to gather all these settings + a cli to auto configure them. You can set these settings without it, but if you are confused (like me) with what is in minutes, what's in seconds, what is in days and where each of them is located, this might save you a few keystrokes / prompts (it also ensures you have the right min version for the package manager, otherwise you'll have the settings but they would be ignored...)[0] https://nodejs.org/en/blog/announcements/v18-release-announc...
[1] https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v21.0.0
What did I just read?