Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Greylist check #61

Open
jahrules opened this issue Jun 17, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Greylist check #61

jahrules opened this issue Jun 17, 2023 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@jahrules
Copy link

Greylist checking is conceptually similar to a whitelist with a bit less trust.

Essentially; if scanned packages have flagged on rules; that gets stored to our database.
in the future, if a new release of the flagged product comes out and it flags on all of the same rules (no more no less) then it is extremely likely that the package has not become malicious. In this case the package is treated as safe. However, if the flagged rules have changed, then the package warrants further scrutiny and so we should continue flagging those instances.

@jahrules jahrules converted this from a draft issue Jun 17, 2023
@jonathan-d-zhang jonathan-d-zhang added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 21, 2023
@import-pandas-as-numpy import-pandas-as-numpy moved this from 🆕 New to 🔖 Ready in Dragonfly Roadmap Jun 24, 2023
@import-pandas-as-numpy
Copy link
Member

What's going on with this PR?

@Robin5605
Copy link
Contributor

Some clarification on the scope of this PR: the graylist should make it so that the package never shows up on the feed at all, rather than just block users from reporting it. This isn't currently possible with our code architecture, so we'll need #95 to be completed first before implementing this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Status: 🔎 Discovery
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants