Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[RRFC] npm audit exclusions #227

Closed
nfriedly opened this issue Sep 10, 2020 · 1 comment
Closed

[RRFC] npm audit exclusions #227

nfriedly opened this issue Sep 10, 2020 · 1 comment

Comments

@nfriedly
Copy link

nfriedly commented Sep 10, 2020

Motivation ("The Why")

I would like for npm audit to have a way to resolve / acknowledge / ignore / exclude / omit / suppress certain advisories.

I maintain a package that an advisory was recently published for. The typical use is not vulnerable but a less common usage is. At least one of my users has had trouble with upgrading to the fixed version. Their usage not vulnerable and therefore an upgrade is not required. I would like to recommend excluding this advisory, but it doesn't seem possible with npm audit.

In my research, I saw that npm/npm-audit-report#38 was closed with a recommendation to post something here.

Example

nsp's .nsprc file had an exceptions field:

{
  "exceptions": [
    "https://nodesecurity.io/advisories/534"
  ]
}

The .snyk policy file similarly has an Ignore rule:

Ignore:
  snyk-vulnid:
    - path to library using > seperator :
      reason: 'text string'
      expires: 'datetime string'

How

Current Behaviour

The current behavior continues to show users irrelevant issues after they have evaluated the advisory and concluded that it does not apply to their use. This could lead to frustration with the tool as well as actual vulnerabilities being lost in the "noise".

Desired Behaviour

I'd be happy if it worked similarly to nsp, or if it was a field added to the package.json.

Synk's reason, expiration date, and specific library matching may also be desirable, I don't have a strong opinion there.

References

@nfriedly
Copy link
Author

nfriedly commented Sep 10, 2020

I'm going to close this in favor of #18 - I searched before posting, but didn't use the correct terminology to find that PR. I tried to update this issue to include every term I could think of as well as links to all of the duplicates and relations, so it's hopefully useful to future searchers.

Feel free to re-open if appropriate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant