Package registries distribute code without reliable revocation, so once a malicious artifact is published it proliferates across mirrors, caches, and derivative builds long after takedown. 2025 breaches show that weak auth and missing provenance let attackers reach 'publish' and that registries lack a universal way to invalidate poisoned content. Architectures must add signed provenance and enforceable revocation, not just rely on maintainer hygiene.
— If core software infrastructure can’t revoke bad code, governments, platforms, and industry will have to set new standards (signing, provenance, TUF/Sigstore, enforceable revocation) to secure the digital supply chain.
BeauHD
2025.12.03
50% relevant
The GitHub Actions 'safe_sleep.sh' hang and alleged 'vibe‑scheduling' show how a central service’s bugs can cripple CI at scale; this parallels the registry‑revocation concern—platforms that serve as indispensable plumbing must have operational controls and governance (manual intervention, rollbacks, revocation) that are currently missing.
BeauHD
2025.12.02
78% relevant
The developer revoked the old signature and plans to publish a new app ID—highlighting the practical need for robust revocation, provenance, and rollout controls in app distribution systems and package registries so compromised builds can be instantly invalidated and users protected.
EditorDavid
2025.10.06
100% relevant
LinuxSecurity’s claim that registries have “no universally reliable kill switch” and that weak authentication/missing provenance quietly enabled the 2025 npm, PyPI, and Docker Hub compromises.
← Back to All Ideas