@checkstack/healthcheck-ssh-backend
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| dependencies | unvetted-dep:@checkstack/backend-api | AI (dependencies): Workspace-scoped sibling monorepo dependency; not an external unvetted package. | ai | |
| bogus-package | bogus-package | AI (bogus-package): Internal @checkstack scoped package; missing metadata is consistent across the whole monorepo, not a spam indicator. | ai | |
| npm-metadata | no-description | AI (npm-metadata): Same pattern across @checkstack packages; internal tooling, not a public-facing library. | ai | |
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): Consistent across all @checkstack packages; org-level pattern, not a per-version concern. | ai | |
| license | uncommon-license:Elastic-2.0 | AI (license): Elastic-2.0 is the declared license for all @checkstack packages; stable across versions. | ai |
Versions (showing 31 of 31)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 0.2.29 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.28 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.27 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.26 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.25 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.24 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.23 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.22 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.21 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.20 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.19 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.17 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.14 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.13 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.12 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.2.1 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.12 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.11 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.10 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.9 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.8 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.7 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.6 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.5 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.4 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.3 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.2 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.1 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.1.0 | 5 / 5 | |
| 0.0.3 | 4 / 5 | |
| 0.0.2 | 4 / 5 |
v0.2.29
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.28
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.27
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.26
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.25
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.24
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.23
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.22
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.21
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.20
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.19
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.17
2 findingsThis version has no gitHead field linking it to a source commit, but previous versions did. This suggests the publish environment changed. Published by: enyineer.
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.14
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.2.13
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.2.12
2 findingsThis version has no gitHead field linking it to a source commit, but previous versions did. This suggests the publish environment changed. Published by: enyineer.
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.1.12
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.11
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.10
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.1.9
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.8
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.7
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.1.6
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.5
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.1.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.1.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.0.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.0.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.