@launchql/env
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
Keywords
Accepted risks
Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.
| Source | Rule | Reason | Accepted by | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| email-domain | unclaimed-email:dan lynch | AI (email-domain): Author field uses name string as email placeholder; not a real domain registration risk. | ai | |
| semgrep | semgrep:dynamic-require | AI (semgrep): Config-file loader pattern; loads user-specified config paths, expected for an env/config tool. | ai | |
| typosquat | typosquat.levenshtein:ajv | AI (typosquat): Scoped @launchql package; Levenshtein match to 'ajv' is coincidental, not a typosquat attempt. | ai |
Versions (showing 25 of 25)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 2.8.3 | 3 / 1 | |
| 2.8.2 | 3 / 1 | |
| 2.8.1 | 3 / 1 | |
| 2.8.0 | 3 / 1 | |
| 2.6.1 | 2 / 1 | |
| 2.6.0 | 2 / 1 | |
| 2.5.8 | 2 / 1 | |
| 2.5.7 | 2 / 1 | |
| 2.5.6 | 2 / 1 | |
| 2.5.5 | 2 / 1 | |
| 2.5.4 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.5.3 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.5.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.5.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.4.7 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.4.6 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.4.5 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.4.4 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.4.3 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.4.2 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.4.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.4.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.3.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.2.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.2.0 | 2 / 0 |
v2.8.3
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.2
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.1
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.0
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.6.1
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.6.0
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.5.8
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.5.7
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.5.6
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.5.5
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.5.4
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.5.3
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.5.1
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.5.0
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.4.7
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.4.6
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.4.5
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.4.4
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.4.3
2 findingsMaintainer email 'Dan Lynch' uses domain 'dan lynch' 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 'Dan Lynch' uses domain 'dan lynch' 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 'Dan Lynch' uses domain 'dan lynch' 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 'Dan Lynch' uses domain 'dan lynch' 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 'Dan Lynch' uses domain 'dan lynch' 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 'Dan Lynch' uses domain 'dan lynch' 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 'Dan Lynch' uses domain 'dan lynch' 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.