3 ms·

Perhaps inverting the logic there might be worth considering? Make it so you have to explicitly go in and mark your package.json as public before npm will publ

Perhaps inverting the logic there might be worth considering? Make it so you have to explicitly go in and mark your package.json as public before npm will publish it, and have the default be private? I don't have _too_ much sympathy for the bank here - it's in npm's best interest to make it easy to publish leftpad.js easily <snarky smirk> - and that probably should be their default stance. The bank should be responsible for ensuring their "banking grade security" includes not accidentally publishing their source code to public repos. (How much would you bet against there being instances exactly like this where the publication vector was GitHub instead of npm? How much would you bet against this exact code being on a public git repo somewhere as well? How many public code hosting services should be expected to change their business models because some bank gets uptight after they've fucked up?)

BoorishBears 8y ago
What's impressive to me is you (and so many others) being charitable enough to assume that the original developer didn't intentionally publish this package. Some bank developer (or more likely, some underpaid contractor) wants to share something between projects and doesn't want the hassle of proper channels, or just doesn't care enough and thinks "I'll publish this, who will ever find it?". Years later someone stumbles upon it, maybe they don't even know who did it, "NPM why do you have our code?!?!?!?!" This is the most likely scenario once you consider this was a bank. In which case there's nothing NPM could do. No warning would have changed their intent, they knew what they were signing up for.
- ivan_gammel 8y ago
  If there’s enough friction, no one would bother publishing to public repo instead of setting up private Nexus instance, which is quite easy. And it’s quite possible that the leak could happen on early stage of CI setup for that project (private flag removed, but wrong login used). It’s a mistake very easy to make: “private” flag is just not an appropriate tool for private CI.
dec0dedab0de 8y ago
I think open source tools should always default to sharing. If you're trying to keep things secret it should be up to you to keep them secret.
kbenson 8y ago
> it's in npm's best interest to make it easy to publish leftpad.js easily That's what I was getting at above. It definitely was in NPM's best interest to do so. Depending on your definition of "easily", is it still in their interest to have it quite that easy? Perhaps a different default is in order now, as you suggest. Or perhaps it should even require a confirmation dialog on the terminal for the first public push? People will still use NPM at this point. Not having enough packages or a package for a specific functionality is hardly a problem for them any more.
- adrianhel 8y ago
  They could just change it to `npm publish npm|url name` with some useful warnings. The name should be checked against package.name. Then libraries could simply add an npm script for publishing. npm publish To publish a package to npm, you must enter: npm publish npm <package-name> To publish a package to another registry, you must enter: npm publish <url> <package-name> Just as easy, just clearer.
  - madeofpalk 8y ago
    cool, so now the developer that did this will just thoughtlessly type npm publish npm instead. At the end of the day, there's only so much you can do. Really, a hammer shouldn't have a prompt on it confirming each hit. If it does, users will just instinctively press it and then a few months down the road they'll hit their thumb.

BoorishBears 8y ago

What's impressive to me is you (and so many others) being charitable enough to assume that the original developer didn't intentionally publish this package. Some bank developer (or more likely, some underpaid contractor) wants to share something between projects and doesn't want the hassle of proper channels, or just doesn't care enough and thinks "I'll publish this, who will ever find it?". Years later someone stumbles upon it, maybe they don't even know who did it, "NPM why do you have our code?!?!?!?!" This is the most likely scenario once you consider this was a bank. In which case there's nothing NPM could do. No warning would have changed their intent, they knew what they were signing up for.

ivan_gammel 8y ago
If there’s enough friction, no one would bother publishing to public repo instead of setting up private Nexus instance, which is quite easy. And it’s quite possible that the leak could happen on early stage of CI setup for that project (private flag removed, but wrong login used). It’s a mistake very easy to make: “private” flag is just not an appropriate tool for private CI.

dec0dedab0de 8y ago

I think open source tools should always default to sharing. If you're trying to keep things secret it should be up to you to keep them secret.

kbenson 8y ago

> it's in npm's best interest to make it easy to publish leftpad.js easily That's what I was getting at above. It definitely was in NPM's best interest to do so. Depending on your definition of "easily", is it still in their interest to have it quite that easy? Perhaps a different default is in order now, as you suggest. Or perhaps it should even require a confirmation dialog on the terminal for the first public push? People will still use NPM at this point. Not having enough packages or a package for a specific functionality is hardly a problem for them any more.

adrianhel 8y ago
They could just change it to `npm publish npm|url name` with some useful warnings. The name should be checked against package.name. Then libraries could simply add an npm script for publishing. npm publish To publish a package to npm, you must enter: npm publish npm <package-name> To publish a package to another registry, you must enter: npm publish <url> <package-name> Just as easy, just clearer.
- madeofpalk 8y ago
  cool, so now the developer that did this will just thoughtlessly type npm publish npm instead. At the end of the day, there's only so much you can do. Really, a hammer shouldn't have a prompt on it confirming each hit. If it does, users will just instinctively press it and then a few months down the road they'll hit their thumb.