There is something that have been bothering me for past few months, and resulted in me archiving node-ip repo on github: https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-78xj-cgh5-2h22
Someone filed a dubious CVE about my npm package, and then I started getting messages from all people getting warnings from `npm audit`.
I just posted a comment on the advisory issue https://github.com/github/advisory-database/pull/3504#issuecomment-2189530624 asking to remove it, but looking at dicer's advisory https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-wm7h-9275-46v2 I see that there might be a larger pattern in place?
/1
It looks like there are entities that in theory should fill the void in OSS community and provide resources for managing security reports for overloaded maintainers. (I'm looking at you SNYK)
However, the verification process of vulnerability reports doesn't involve maintainer at all, and it sounds like the commercial interest of advisory repositories is aligned with creating more vulnerabilities and proving themselves “useful" to companies that utilize them.
/2
For that dicer bug in particular, I don't think it is reproducible as described in the advisory's PoC: https://gist.github.com/indutny-signal/9602403f5b0a946d139398e9bad8222c
Furthermore the PoC doesn't seem to involve dicer at all: https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-DICER-2311764
What's funny is that I found no way to dispute the advisory on SNYK. The closest thing that I found was to write a message to support, but I'm not entirely sure whether this results in a vulnerability takedown...
/fin
Update:
GitHub got back to me and decided to lower the vulnerability rating in response to my feedback. Furthermore, they advised me to enable Private Vulnerability Reporting feature so that I could get a chance at tackling the reports before they hit all package users next time. Great response!
SNYK still didn't get back to me, though, and I have no idea if another feedback channel exists.
@indutny you should see how synk's "security researchers" act in email...