I think it's not a good idea. It makes the attack surface very
predictable, and 10 trivial and believable commits are not that hard to do
On 5/31/26 11:41, Jack-Benny Persson wrote:
On Sunday, May 31st, 2026 at 03:14, Carson Coder <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, I had an idea. What if we flagged the first 10 commits from a new user for
manual review? That way a malicious actor would have to make at least 10 good
commits, before making a malicious commit. The main downside I can think about
is that this might add a lot more work for the moderators but also it would
make making malicious packages harder / take longer. Even then, if someone does
make 10 good commits and then makes a malicious commit, they would have at
least contributed 10 good commits. Maybe we could even make the number of
commits vary from user to user (maybe have some sort of system so someone can't
just make 10 commits to change the version of a package) so that its harder to
know how many good commits need to be made.
(this is my first time mailing this list, if I am being stupid please tell me
nicely)
Hi, I think this is a an excellent idea. Like you said, even if a user makes a
malicious commit after those first 10 commits, at least they contributed with
those commits. And generally speaking, the harder it is to make a malicious
commit, fewer bad actors will have the patience to keep at it. There will still
be bad actors with lots of time and patience, but the bulk of them might not.
(This is also my first message to the list, so please be gentle.)
Best regards,
Jack-Benny Persson
