@aptos-scp/scp-component-store-selling-features-domain-model
This component library provides the common components to handle the coordination of processing the business events from the UI.
Supply chain provenance
Status for the latest visible version.
Without SLSA provenance there is no cryptographic link between this tarball and the public source — the axios compromise (March 2026) relied on exactly this gap.
Maintainers
Accepted risks
Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.
| Source | Rule | Reason | Accepted by | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| email-domain | unclaimed-email:y.com | AI (email-domain): [email protected] is a placeholder/dummy email, not a real maintainer identity; no hijack risk in practice. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:intl | AI (phantom-deps): Referenced in config/polyfill context; stable false positive for this package. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:big.js | AI (phantom-deps): Declared dep used transitively or in config; stable false positive. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:crc-32 | AI (phantom-deps): Declared dep used transitively or in config; stable false positive. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:fbemitter | AI (phantom-deps): Declared dep used transitively or in config; stable false positive. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:iso-3166-1 | AI (phantom-deps): Declared dep used transitively or in config; stable false positive. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:fast-json-patch | AI (phantom-deps): Declared dep used transitively or in config; stable false positive. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:typescript-string-operations | AI (phantom-deps): Declared dep used transitively or in config; stable false positive. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:@aptos-scp/scp-types-canonical-orders-web-services | AI (phantom-deps): Same org scope; stable false positive for this package. | ai |
Versions (showing 34 of 34)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 3.3.0 | 13 / 66 | |
| 2.45.2 | 13 / 66 | |
| 2.36.0 | 13 / 66 | |
| 2.23.0 | 12 / 66 | |
| 2.15.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.14.1 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.14.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.13.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.12.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.11.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.10.6 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.10.5 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.10.4 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.10.3 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.10.2 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.10.1 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.10.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.9.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.8.1 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.8.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.7.2 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.7.1 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.7.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.6.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.5.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.4.2 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.4.1 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.4.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.3.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.2.1 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.2.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.1.1 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.1.0 | 11 / 66 | |
| 2.0.0 | 11 / 66 |
v3.3.0
2 findingsPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (ayushpandeyaptos) than the most recent previously approved version (fmartinez-aptos-com) on 2026-06-10, but ayushpandeyaptos is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v2.45.2
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.36.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.23.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.15.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.14.1
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.14.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.13.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.12.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.11.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.10.6
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.10.5
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.10.4
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.10.3
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.10.2
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.10.1
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.10.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.9.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.1
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.7.2
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.7.1
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.7.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.6.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.5.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.4.2
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.4.1
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.4.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.3.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.2.1
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.2.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.1.1
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.1.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.0.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'y.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.