> I thought dependabot commits were signed though. … nothing stops a dependabot impersonator from signing their commit. (edit: the OP is rather confused on th

> I thought dependabot commits were signed though. … nothing stops a dependabot impersonator from signing their commit. (edit: the OP is rather confused on this point. While the commit could be signed, I don't know that in this case it could be signed in a way that Github would give it the green (Verified) bauble. The prose says the commit is signed, but the screenshot seems to suggest they're not. (Though they almost covered up the relevant area…)) You'd still have to notice that it's not coming from the real dependabot > So just seeing a commit from a user named “dependabot” would actually be extra suspicious to me. Short of hovering over the user's icon¹ (which should go to the app, not to a user) or reading the contest of the commit … I don't think a good impersonation would look different from the real deal in the history. (Note that as others note: the commits here are already merged, via stolen PATs. You'd be trying to distinguish a malicious commit in your history from the real deal.) ¹actually, maybe they can't spoof the icon, since it's coming from a stolen PAT + the commit data isn't going to link up due to trying to spoof the name, which is why it's blank in the screencap. So that's a bit more of a giveaway, but I still think most people would be hard-pressed to notice.