Live data from Hacker News

Backdoor in event-stream library dependency

github.com

1–10 of 509 posts

Re: Backdoor in event-stream library dependency

#7
I really have a hard time putting as much blame on the author as the people in that Github thread are doing. Maybe they could have handled this specific issue a little better, but the underlying problem is just one of the flaws in the open source community that everyone has to accept. Maintaining a project is a lot of work (even just having your name attached to a dead project involves work) and the benefit from doing that work can be non-existent. If the original author has no use for the project anymore and someone offers to take it over from them, why should the author be expected to refuse? Isn't adding another potentially unknown maintainer generally better for the community than a project dying?

Re: Backdoor in event-stream library dependency

#10
post #4

I guess it's not npm specific, because the same thing can happen in any other open source repo, can't it? Some guy takes over maintenance of a dormant package and then adds code which no one bothers to check.

Well, not really. Anyone can "take it over" in the sense of creating a new, maintained fork, but the various distro package managers have policies that I think generally require some review/approval process to transfer ownership of a package they publish. I don't know anything about NPM, but imagine it's a more lax process than something like Debian. It sounds like the maintainer here did something shady or simply reckless in effectively transferring ownership but not disclosing this to folks at NPM?
Post reply on HN