Live data from Hacker News

Malicious code in the purescript NPM installer

harry.garrood.me

1–10 of 279 posts

Re: Malicious code in the purescript NPM installer

#4
post #3

Not actually malicious. It doesn't steal user data, drop malware, or damage a computer. Just crashes the library. Looks like another developer-developer slap fight.

I beg your pardon, but if I am using this library as part of a shipping piece of software-as-a-service, and I am in the middle of shipping a new feature when suddenly things mysteriously crash...

If I later discover that the crash was put there deliberately, I am going to call that malice, and malice that has directly impacted a functioning business and its customers.

It's no different than a disgruntled person putting tacks on the road outside of a supplier. If my truck goes there, gets a flat, and crashes into the ditch as a result, I would call that malice as well.

Deliberately crashing software that other people depend upon is malice.

Re: Malicious code in the purescript NPM installer

#5
post #2

I wonder how bad will this cred-stuffing package authors problem will get before npm/other package managers flat out require 2FA for maintainers

I think the blog author is implying as much as he can, without directly accusing, that he believes that https://github.com/shinnn was responsible for the bad code, not a random hack.

Re: Malicious code in the purescript NPM installer

#6
Another reminder of how annoying it is for a package system to have unqualified package names.

Having to ask someone to gift a `purescript` package shouldn't even be a thing. It should've been `@shinn/purescript` and the compiler developers just create their own `@whatever/purescript`.

This is something Elm and many others got right. https://package.elm-lang.org/ It's just infinitely, obviously better.

You see all sorts of problems because of this, like people "giving packages away" when they quit. Or buying package names. Or coming up with annoying name hacks because the obvious, best name is simply taken. Or people thinking/guessing that `npm install mysql` is the correct/best/canonical package because it's the simplest name, and anyone who publishes a better library has to name it mysql2 or better-mysql, etc. These just shouldn't even be things.

Re: Malicious code in the purescript NPM installer

#8
post #3

Not actually malicious. It doesn't steal user data, drop malware, or damage a computer. Just crashes the library. Looks like another developer-developer slap fight.

It's childish and amounts to an indirect attempt at damaging the reputation of the compiler maintainers. It's playing fast and loose with everyone who needs an install up and working for reasons. I'd say there was a heap of malice and it reflects very badly on mister "someone gained access to my account".

Re: Malicious code in the purescript NPM installer

#9
post #2

I wonder how bad will this cred-stuffing package authors problem will get before npm/other package managers flat out require 2FA for maintainers

I think the blog author is implying as much as he can, without directly accusing, that he believes that https://github.com/shinnn was responsible for the bad code, not a random hack.

2FA would also make it much harder to use the "somebody hacked me" defense.
Post reply on HN