Lotusbail npm package found to be harvesting WhatsApp messages and contacts
koi.ai323 points by sohkamyung 2 days ago
323 points by sohkamyung 2 days ago
Just to talk about a different direction here for a second:
Something that I find to be a frustrating side effect of malware issues like this is that it seems to result in well-intentioned security teams locking down the data in apps.
The justification is quite plausible -- in this case WhatsApp messages were being stolen! But the thing is... that if this isn't what they steal they'll steal something else.
Meanwhile locking down those apps so the only apps with a certain signature can read from your WhatsApp means that if you want to back up your messages or read them for any legitimate purpose you're now SOL, or reliant on a usually slow, non-automatable UI-only flow.
I'm glad that modern computers are more secure than they have been, but I think that defense in depth by locking down everything and creating more silos is a problem of its own.
I agree with this, just to note for context though: This (or rather the package that was forked) is not a wrapper of any official WhatsApp API or anything like that, it poses as a WhatsApp client (WhatsApp Web), which the author reverse engineered the protocol of.
So users go through the same steps as if they were connecting another client to their WhatsApp account, and the client gets full access to all data of course.
From what I understand WhatsApp is already fairly locked down, so people had to resort to this sort of thing – if WA had actually offered this data via a proper API with granular permissions, there might have been a lower chance of this happening.
Right, it would need to use an integrity API to prohibit 3rd party clients.
The OS should be mediating such access where it explicitly asks your permission for an app to access data belonging to another publisher.
I could certainly see the value in this in principle but sadly the labyrinthine mess that is the Apple permission system (in which they learned none of the lessons of early UAC) illustrates the kind of result that seems to arise from this.
A great microcosm illustration of this is automation permission on macOS right now: there's a separate allow dialog for every single app. If you try to use a general purpose automation app it needs to request permission for every single app on your computer individually the first time you use it. Having experienced that in practice it... absolutely sucks.
At this point it makes me feel like we need something like an async audit API. Maybe the OS just tracks and logs all of your apps' activity and then:
1) You can view it of course.
2) The OS monitors for deviations from expected patterns for that app globally (kinda like Microsoft's SmartScreen?)
3) Your own apps can get permission to read this audit log if you want to analyze it your own way and/or be more secure. If you're more paranoid maybe you could use a variant that kills an app in a hurry if it's misbehaving.
Sadly you can't even implement this as a third party thing on macOS at this point because the security model prohibits you from monitoring other apps. You can't even do it with the user's permission because tracing apps requires you to turn SIP off.
> Maybe the OS just tracks and logs all of your apps' activity
The problem here, is that like so many social-media apps, the first thing the app will do is scrape as much as it possibly can from the device, lest it lose access later, at which point auditing it and restricting its permissions is already too late.
Give an inch, and they’ll take a mile. Better to make them justify every millimetre instead.
This just sounds like another security nightmare.
We're not in 1980 anymore. Most people need zero, and even power users need at most one or two apps that need that full access to the disk.
In macOS, for example, the sandbox and the file dialog already allow opening any file, bundle or folder on the disk. I haven't really come across any app that does better browsing than this dialog, but if there's any, it should be a special case. Funny enough, WhatsApp on iOS is an app that reimplements the photo browser, as a dark pattern to force users to either give full permission to photos or suffer.
The only time where the OS file dialog becomes limited is when a file is actually "multiple files". Which is 1) solvable by bundles or folders and 2) a symptom of developers not giving a shit about usability.
Time vibe code our own freakin OS with sane defaults. Use the linux kernel as a base for hardware support
This sounds great on paper, but what happens when the OS isn't working for the user like Windows?
I mean this was an app for accessing WhatsApp data, you would approve it and go on... the problem is with it sending data off to a 3rd party.
I think you miss understood. If the OS becomes the arbiter of what can and cannot be accessed; it's a slippery slope to the OS becoming a walled garden that only approved apps and developers are allowed to operate. Of course that is a pretty large generalization, but we already see it with mobile devices and are starting to see it with windows and Mac OS.
I don't think we should be handing more power to OS makers and away from users. There has to be a middle ground between wall gardens and open systems. It would be much better for node & npm to come up with a solution than locking down access.
The arbiter of what can be accessed should be the user, and always the user. The OS should be merely the enforcer.
Currently OSs are a free-for-all, where the user must blindly trust third-party apps, or they enforce it clumsily like in macOS.
This was fine in 1980 but isn't anymore.
I'm pretty sure WhatsApp does this for anti-competitive reasons not security reasons.
Meanwhile locking down those apps so the only apps with a certain signature can read from your WhatsApp means that if you want to back up your messages or read them for any legitimate purpose you're now SOL, or reliant on a usually slow, non-automatable UI-only flow.
...and this gives them more control, so they can profit from it. Corporate greed knows no bounds.
I'm glad that modern computers are more secure than they have been
I'm not. Back when malware was more prevalent among the lower class, there was also far more freedom and interoperability.
> Back when malware was more prevalent among the lower class, there was also far more freedom and interoperability.
Yeah, “the lower class” had the freedom of having their IM accounts hacked and blast spam/scam messages to all contacts all the time. How nostalgic.
The virus-infested computers caused by scam versions of Neopets, are not dissimilar to Windows today.
Live internet popups you didn't ask for, live tracking of everything you do, new buttons suddenly appearing in every toolbar. All of it slowing down your machine.
It seems to me the only adequate solution regarding any of these types of security and privacy vs data sharing and access matters, is going to be an OS and system level agent that can identify and question behaviors and data flows (AI firewall and packet inspection?), and configure systems in line with the user’s accepted level of risk and privacy.
It is already a major security and privacy risk for users to rely on the beneficence and competence of developers (let alone corporations and their constant shady practices/rug-pulls), as all the recent malware and large scale supply chain compromises have shown. I find the only acceptable solution would be to use AI to help users (and devs, for that matter) navigate and manage the exponential complexity of privacy and security.
For a practical example, imagine your iOS AI Agent notifying you that as you had requested, it is informing you that it adjusted the Facebook data sharing settings because the SOBs changed them to be more permissive again after the last update. It may even then suggest that since this is the 5685th shady incident by Facebook, that it may be time to adjust the position towards what to share on Facebook.
That could also extend to the subject story; where one’s agent blocks and warns of the behavior of a library an app uses, which is exfiltrating WhatsApp messages/data and sending it off device.
Ideally such malicious code will soon also be identified way sooner as AI agents can become code reviewers, QA, and even maintainers of open source packages/libraries, which would intercept such behaviors well before being made available; but ultimately, I believe it should all become a function of the user’s agent looking out for their best interests on the individual level. We simply cannot sustain “trust me, bro” security and privacy anymore…especially since as has been demonstrated quite clearly, you cannot trust anyone anymore in the west, whether due to deliberate or accidental actions, because the social compact has totally broken down… you’re on your own… just you and your army of AI agents in the matrix.
I imagine the average HN commenter seeing every new story being posted and thinking "how could I criticise big tech using this"
That's the funny thing about those here in the spirit of Hacker News. We want to build – to hack.
It's all well and good for us all to use Linux to side-step this, but sometimes (shock, horror), we even want to _share_ those hacks with other people!
As such, it's kinda nice if the Big Tech software on those devices didn't lock all of our friends in tiny padded cells 'for their own safety'.
I don't really know what I'm doing, but. Why couldn't messages be stored encrypted on a blockchain with a system where both user's in a one-one conversation agree to a key, or have their own keys, that grants permission for 'their' messages. And then you'd never be locked into a private software / private database / private protocol. You could read your messages at any point with your key.
I hope we all have the same change in sentiment about AI in 3 years from now!
At this point, the existence of these attacks should be an expected outcome. (It should have been expected even without the empirical record we now have and the multiple times that we can now cite.)
NPM and NPM-style package managers that are designed to late-fetch dependencies just before build-time are already fundamentally broken. They're an end-run around the underlying version control system, all in favor of an ill-considered, half-baked scheme to implement an alternative approach to version control of the package manager project maintainers' devising.
And they provide cover for attacks like this, because they encourage a culture where, because one's dependencies are all "over there", the massive surface area gets swept under the rug and they never get reviewed (because 56K NPM users can't be wrong).
I am slowly waking up to the realization that we (software engineers) are laughably bad at security. I used to think that it was only NPM (I have worked a lot in this ecosystem over the years), but I have found this to be essentially everywhere: NPM is a poster child for this because of executable scripts on install, but every package manager essentially boils down to "Install this thing by name, no security checks". Every ecosystem I touch now (apart from gamedev, but only because I roll everything myself there by choice) has this - e.g Cargo has a lot of "tools" that you install globally so that you get some capability (like flamegraphs, asm output, test runners etc.) - this is the same vulnerability, manifesting slightly differently. Like others have pointed out, it is common to just pull random Docker images via Helm charts. It is also common to get random "utility" tools during builds in CI/CD pipelines, just by curl-ing random URLs of various "release archives". You don't even have to look too hard - this is surface level in pretty much every company, almost every industry (I have my doubts about the security theatre in some, but I have no first hand experience, so cannot say)
The issue I have is that I don't really have a good idea for a solution to this problem - on one hand, I don't expect everyone to roll the entire modern stacks by hand every time. Killing collaborative software development seems like literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. On the other hand, I feel like nothing I touch is "secure" in any real sense - the tick boxes are there, and they are all checked, but I don't think a single one of them really protects me against anything - most of the time, the monster is already inside the house.
>The issue I have is that I don't really have a good idea for a solution to this problem - on one hand, I don't expect everyone to roll the entire modern stacks by hand every time. Killing collaborative software development seems like literally throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Is NPM really collaborative? People just throw stuff out there and you can pick it up. It's the least commons denominator of collaboration.
The thing that NPM is missing is trust and trust doesn't scale to 1000x dependencies.
IMO the solution is auditing. We should be auditing every single version of every single dependency before we use it. Not necessarily personally, but we could have a review system like Ebay/Uber/AirBnB and require N trusted reviews.
This is the way. But people read it, nod their heads, and then go back to yolo'ing dependencies into their project without reading them. Culture change is needed.
Something that I keep thinking about is spec driven design.
If, for code, there is a parallel "state" document with the intent behind each line of code, each function
And in conjunction that state document is connected to a "higher layer of abstraction" document (recursively up as needed) to tie in higher layers of intent
Such a thing would make it easier to surface weird behavior imo, alongside general "spec driven design" perks. More human readable = more eyes, and potential for automated LLM analysis too.
I'm not sure it'd be _Perfect_, but I think it'd be loads better than what we've got now
I think the solution is a build system that requires version pinning - options include Nix, Bazel, and Buck.
I am a big fan of Bazel and have explored Nix (although, regrettably not used it in anger quite yet) - both seem like good steps in the right direction and something I would love to see more usage/evolution of. However, it is important to recognize that these tools have a steep learning curve and require deep knowledge in more than one aspect in order to be used effectively/at all.
Speed of development and development experience are not metrics to be minimized/discarded lightly. If you were to start a company/product/project tomorrow, a lot of the things you want to be doing in the beginning are not related to these tools. You probably, most of the time, want to be exploring your solution space. Creating a development and CI/CD environment that can fully take advantage of these tools capabilities (like hermeticity and reproducibility) is not straightforward - in most cases setting up, scaling and maintaining these often requires a whole team with knowledge that most developers won't have. You don't want to gatekeep the writing of new software behind such requirements. But I do agree that the default should be closer to this, than what we have today. How we get there - now that is the million dollar question.
Back in the days of Makefilea and autoconf, we tended to require specific versions and would document that in the readme.
I agree with much of what you said here, but is it really just about the package manager? If I had specified this repo's git url with a specific version number or sha directly in my package.json, the outcome would be just about the same. And so that's not really an end-run around version control at that point. Even with npm out of the picture the problem is still there.
> If I had specified this repo's git url with a specific version number or sha directly in my package.json[…] that's not really an end-run around version control at that point
Yes it is. Git doesn't operate based on package.json.
You're still trying to devise a scheme where, instead of Git tracking the source code of what you're building and deploying and/or turning into a release, you're excluding parts of that content from Git's purview. That's doing an end-run around the VCS.
It's hardly an end-run around VCS to specify an external dependency's VCS sha, and resolve that at build time.
But okay, let's go further and use git submodules so that package.json is out of the picture. Even in that case we have the same problem.
Or, let's go even further and vendor the dependency so it is now copied into our source code. Even in that case too, we still have the same problem.
The dependency has been malicious all along, so if we use it in any way the game is already over.
> It's hardly an end-run around VCS to specify an external dependency's VCS sha, and resolve that at build time
Not "hardly". That's very literally an end-run around the VCS.
This is not a productive discussion.
Well, either way, the point stands that checking this dependency into source control would not have made any difference since it was malicious all along.
This is an "all else being equal" argument except without saying so explicitly, and it falls apart if that doesn't hold.
Your claim is that no matter whether dependencies' source code is acquired by git-clone or npm-install, then everything related to this attack unfolds exactly the same as it did in the timeline where we live. But as I said in my first comment in this thread the effect of going along with The NPM Way changes how people interact with third-party code.
My contention is that in the universe where dependencies get checked into version control, this is one package that (assuming it ever got created at all) would have been less successful in conscripting others to choose it as a dependency, and that wrt the remaining instances if any where it was approved to be checked in, the question of what effect the mere act of checking it into version control and the fact of its existing there has on its being discovered sooner is non-zero.
The root problem is the OS allows npm packages to grab your WhatsApp messages without the user knowing.
The OS isn't allowing anything as far as I can see. It's a fork of a library that allows you to use the WhatsApp API, it actually works, it also just happen to also harvest your credentials and messages.
Should the OS prevent you from doing API calls to WhatsApps servers? What about the actual library this is based on, should that be blocked as well?
The root of the problem is that users and developers may have legitimate reasons to want API access to a service, like WhatsApp. That just comes with a level of risk. Especially in a world where we're not use to auditing our dependencies. The only sort of maybe solution I can see is the operating system prompting you when an application want's to make an outgoing request, but in this case the messages might just go to AWS and an S3 bucket, or it could send them via WhatsApp to the attack, how would you spot that in the operating system, without built in knowledge of WhatsApp specifically?
This is an npm package that allows you to interact with WhatsApp using their API. The OS wouldn’t prevent this as it’s not interacting with your WhatsApp on your machine, but rather logging you in via a skillfully made 3rd party interface, that unfortunately happens to also be evil.
There are so many package managers out there for different platforms. I feel like there should be some more general, standardized, package manager that is language agnostic. Something that: - has some guarantees about dependencies - has some guarantees about provenance (only allow if signed by x, y, z kind of thing) - has a standardized api so corporate or third party curation of packages is possible (I want my own company package manager that I curate) - does ????
I don't know, it just seems like every tech area has these problems and I honestly don't understand why there aren't more 'standardized' solutions here
> They're an end-run around the underlying version control system
I assume by "underlying version control system" you mean apt, rpm, homebrew and friends? They don't solve this problem either. Nobody in the opensource world is auditing code for you. Compromised xz still made it into apt. Who knows how many other packages are compromised in a similar way?
Also, apt and friends don't solve the problem that npm, cargo, pip and so on solve. I'm writing some software. I want to depend on some package X at version Y (eg numpy, serde, react, whatever). I want to use that package, at that version, on all supported platforms. Debian. Ubuntu. Redhat. MacOS. And so on. Try and do that using the system package manager and you're in a world of hurt. "Oh, your system only has official packages for SDL2, not SDL3. Maybe move your entire computer to an unustable branch of ubuntu to fix it?" / "Yeah, we don't have that python package in homebrew. Maybe you could add it and maintain it yourself?" / "New ticket: I'm trying to run your software in gentoo, but it only has an earlier version of dependency Y."
Hell. Utter hell.
No, other trusted repositories are legitimately better because the maintainers built the software themselves. They don't purely rely on binaries from the original developer.
It's not perfect and bad things still make it through, but just look at your example - XZ. This never made it into Debian stable repositories and it was caught remarkably quickly. Meanwhile, we have NPM vulnerability after vulnerability.
But do they audit the code? I say mostly no. They grab the source, try to compile it. Develop patches to fix problems on the specific platform. Once it works, passes the tests, it's done. Package created, added to the repo.
Even OpenBSD, famous for auditing their code, doesn't audit packages. Only the base system.
While I haven't audited line by line everything that I've uploaded in Debian, I do look around and for new versions I check the diff with the old version.
Npm is all source based. Nobody is compiling binaries of JavaScript libraries. Cargo is the same.
I’m not really sure what you think a maintainer adds here. They don’t audit the code. A well written npm or cargo or pip module works automatically on all operating systems. Why would we need or want human intervention? To what? Manually add each package to N other operating systems? Sounds like a huge waste of time. Especially given the selection of packages (and versions of those packages) in every operating system will end up totally different. It’s a massive headache if you want your software to work on multiple Linux distros. And everyone wants that.
Npm also isn’t perfect. But npm also has 20x as many packages as apt does on Ubuntu (3.1M vs 150k). I wouldn’t be surprised if there is more malicious code on npm. Until we get better security tools, its buyer beware.
> I assume by "underlying version control system" you mean apt, rpm, homebrew and friends
No. Git.
...unless your system package manager is nix.
What is so special about nix that it avoids all these issues?
nix is designed to support many versions of your dependencies on the same system by building a hash of your dependency graph and using that as a kind of dependency namespace for the various applications you have installed. The result is that you can run many versions of whatever application you want on the same system.
> Nobody in the opensource world is auditing code for you
That's still true of nix. Whether you should trust a package is on you. But nix solves everything else listed here.
> I want to use that package, at that version, on all supported platforms...
Nix derivations will fail to build if their contents rely on the FHS (https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/index.html), so if a package tries to blindly trust that `/bin/bash` is in fact a compatible version of what you think it is, it won't make it into the package set. So we can each package our a bash script, and instead of running on "bash" each will run on the precise version of bash that we packaged with it. This goes for everything though, compilers, linkers, interpreters, packages that you might otherwise have installed with pip or npm or cargo... nix demands a hash for it up front. It could still have been malicious the whole time, but it can't suddenly become malicious at a later date.
> ... Debian. Ubuntu. Redhat. MacOS. And so on. Try and do that using the system package manager and you're in a world of hurt.
If you're on NixOS, nix is your system package manager. If you're not, you can still install nix and use it on all of those platforms (not Windows, certain heroic folk are working on that, WSL works though)
> Oh, your system only has official packages for SDL2, not SDL3. Maybe move your entire computer to an unustable branch of ubuntu to fix it?"
I just installed SDL3, nix put it in `/nix/store/yla09kr0357x5khlm8ijkmfm8vvzzkxb-sdl3-3.2.26`. Then I installed SDL2, nix put it in `/nix/store/a5ybsxyliwbay8lxx4994xinr2jw079z-sdl2-compat-2.32.58` If I want one or the other at different times, nix will add or remove those from my path. I just have to tell nix which one I want...
$ nix shell nixpkgs#sdl2-compat
$ # now I have sdl2
$ exit
$ nix shell nixpkgs#sdl3
$ # now I have sdl3
All of the major languages have some kind of foo2nix adapter package. When I want to use a python package that's not in nixpkgs, I use uv2nix and nix handles enforcing package sanity on them (i.e. maps uv.lock, a python thing, into flake.lock, a nix thing). I've been dabbling with typescript lately, so I'm using pnpm2nix to map typescript libraries in a similar way.
The learning curve is no joke, but if you climb it, only the hard problems will remain (deciding if the package is malicious in the first place).
Also, you'll have a new problem. You'll be forever cursed to watch people shoot themselves in the foot with inferior packaging, you'll know how to help them, but they'll turn you down with a variant of "that looks too unfamiliar, I'm going to stick with this thing that isn't working".
I think you missed the mark a bit here. This wasn’t a dependency that was compromised, it was a dep that was malicious from the start. Package manager doesn’t really play into this. Even if this package was vendored the outcome would have been the same.
No, package manager actually DOES play into this. Or, rather, the way best practices it enforces do. I would be seriously surprised if debian shipped malware, because the package manager is configured with debian repos by default and you know you can trust these to have a very strict oversight.
If apt's DNA was to download package binaries straight from Github, then I would blame it on the package manager for making it so inherently easy to download malware, wouldn't I?
> I think you missed the mark a bit here. This wasn’t a dependency that was compromised, it was a dep that was malicious from the start.
You're making assumptions that I am making assumptions, but I wasn't making assumptions. I understand the attack.
> Package manager doesn’t really play into this.
It does, for the reasons I described.
> the kind of dependency developers install without a second thought
Kind of a terrifying statement, right there.
Every docker image specified in a k8s yml or docker-compose file or github action that doesn’t end in :sha256@<hash> (ie specifying a label) is one “docker push” away from a compromise, given that tags/labels are not cryptographically specified. You’re just trusting DockerHub and the publisher (or anyone with their creds) to not rug you.
The industry runs on a lot more unexamined trust than people think.
They’re deployed automatically by machine, which definitionally can’t even give it a second thought. The upstream trust is literally specified in code, to be reused constantly automatically. You could get owned in your sleep without doing anything just because a publisher got phished one day.
That's one reason I barely use any dependencies. I'm forced to use a couple, but I tend to "roll my own," quite a bit.
Well, I should qualify that. I do use quite a few dependencies, but they are ones that I wrote.
Requiring the use of lockfiles and strict adherence to checking updates, also helps. I tend to use dependencies for many things, but ones I've trusted over a long time, I know how they work, often chosen because of how they were implemented, so I can see the updates and review them myself. Scaling up to a team, you make that part of the process whenever you add a new dependencies, and someone's name always have to be "assigned" to a dependency, so people take ownership of the code that gets added. Often people figure out it's not worth it, and figure out a simpler way.
I have to trust the publisher, otherwise I can't update and I have to update because CVE's exist. If we step back, how do I even know that the image blessed with hardcoded hash (doublechecked with the website of whoever is supposed to publish it) isn't backdored now?
Because it has been out and published and used for weeks/months. The longer an artifact is public and in use, the less chance it has of being malicious.
Pinning a GitHub Actions action doesn't prevent the action itself from doing an apt install, npm install or running a Docker image that is not pinned.
yeah i mean this is a tough problem. unless you work for a government contractor where they have strict security policies, most devs are just going to run npm install without a second thought as there are a lot of packages.
i dont know what the solution here is other than stop using npm
> i dont know what the solution here is other than stop using npm
Personally I think we need to start adding capability based systems into our programming languages. Random code shouldn't have "ambient authority" to just do anything on my computer with the same privileges as me. Like, if a function has this signature:
function add(a: int, b: int) -> int
Philosophically, I kind of think of it like function arguments and globals. If I call a function foo(someobj), then function foo is explicitly given access to someobj. And it also has access to any globals in my program. But we generally consider globals to be smelly. Passing data explicitly is better.
But the whole filesystem is essentially available as a global that any function, anywhere, can access. With full user permissions. I say no. I want languages where the filesystem itself (or a subset of it) can be passed as an argument. And if a function doesn't get passed a filesystem, it can't access a filesystem. If a function isn't passed a network socket, it can't just create one out of nothing.
I don't think it would be that onerous. The main function would get passed "the whole operating system" in a sense - like the filesystem and so on. And then it can pass files and sockets and whatnot to functions that need access to that stuff.
If we build something like that, we should be able to build something like npm but where you don't need to trust the developers of 3rd party software so much. The current system of trusting everyone with everything is insane.
I couldn't agree with you more, the thing is our underlying security models are protecting systems from their users, but do nothing for protecting user data from the programs they run. Capability based security model will fix that.
Only on desktop. Mobile has this sorted. Programs have access to their own files unrestricted, and then can access the shared file space only through the users specifically selecting them.
I think there's 2 kinds of systems we're talking about here:
1. Capabilities given to a program by the user. Eg, "This program wants to access your contacts. Allow / deny". But everything within a program might still have undifferentiated access. This requires support from the operating system to restrict what a program can do. This exists today in iOS and Android.
2. Capabilities within a program. So, if I call a function in a 3rd party library with the signature add(int, int), it can't access the filesystem or open network connections or access any data thats not in its argument list. Enforcing this would require support from the programming language, not the operating system. I don't know of any programming languages today which do this. C and Rust both fail here, as any function in the program can access the memory space of the entire program and make arbitrary syscalls.
Application level permissions are a good start. But we need the second kind of fine-grained capabilities to protect us from malicious packages in npm, pip and cargo.
I would also say there is a 3rd class, which are distributed capabilities.
When you look at a mobile program such as the GadgetBridge which is synchronizing data between a mobile device and a watch, and number of permissions it requires like contacts, bluetooth pairing, notifications, yadda yadda the list goes on.
Systems like E-Lang wouldn't bundle all these up into a single application. Your watch would have some capabilities, and those would interact directly with capabilities on the phone. I feel like if you want to look at our current popular mobile OS's as capability systems the capabilities are pretty coarse grained.
One thing I would add about compilers, npm, pip, cargo. Is that compilers are transformational programs, they really only need read and write access to a finite set of input, and output. In that sense, even capabilities are overkill because honestly they only need the bare minimum of IO, a batch processing system could do better than our mainstream OS security model.
> No network access. No filesystem. Nothing.
Ironically, any c++ app I've written on windows does exactly this. "Are you sure you want to allow this program to access networking?" At least the first time I run it.
I also rarely write/run code for windows.
Yeah, but if that app was built using a malicious dependency that only relied on the same permissions the app already uses, you’d just click “Yes” and move on and be pwned.
Oh, I don't npm.
If I can't yum (et.al.) install it I absolutely review the past major point releases for an hour and do my research on the library.
The issue with npm is JS doesn't have a stdlib, so developers need to rely on npm and third party libs even for things stdlib provide in languages like Java, Python, Go, ...
Sure it does. The JS standard library these days is huge. Its way bigger than C, Zig and Rust. It includes:
- Random numbers
- Timezones, date formatting
- JSON parsing & serialization
- Functional programming tools (map, filter, reduce, Object.fromEntries, etc)
- TypedArrays
And if you use bun or nodejs, you also have out of the box access to an HTTP server, filesystem APIs, gzip, TLS and more. And if you're working in a browser, almost everything in jquery has since been pulled into the browser too. Eg, document.querySelector.
Of course, web frameworks like react aren't part of the standard library in JS. Nor should they be.
What more do you want JS to include by default? What do java, python and go have in their standard libraries that JS is missing?
When people say "js doesn't have a stdlib" they mean "js doesn't have a robust general purpose stdlib like C++ or ${LANGUAGE_ID_RATHER_BE_USING}."
But of course it fucking doesn't because it's a scripting language for the web. It has what it needs, and to do that it doesn't need much.
> When people say "js doesn't have a stdlib" they mean "js doesn't have a robust general purpose stdlib like C++ ...
It does though! The JS stdlib even includes an entire wasm runtime. Its huge!
Seriously. I can barely think of any features in the C++ stdlib that are missing from JS. There's a couple - like JS is missing std::priority_queue. But JS has soooo much stuff that C++ is missing. Its insane.
That's what I assume people mean, because they can't mean trivial stuff like "left-pad" and "is-even" because why would that be part of any language's standard library?
Weird that the JS community relies entirely on external libraries with arbitrarily deep and fragile dependency trees that default fail to wrecking the entire web because JS "doesn't have a stdlib" for this sort of thing then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯