@lexical/dragon
Supply chain provenance
Status for the latest visible version.
Maintainers
Keywords
Accepted risks
Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.
| Source | Rule | Reason | Accepted by | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| provenance | publisher-changed | AI (provenance): Transition from human publisher to GitHub Actions CI/CD with SLSA attestation; expected for facebook/lexical. | ai | |
| provenance | missing-githead | AI (provenance): gitHead dropped during CI/CD migration; SLSA provenance provides stronger commit linkage. | ai | |
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): Lexical monorepo packages consistently publish without Sigstore provenance; this is a stable pattern across all 577 versions and not a risk indicator. | ai | |
| dependencies | unvetted-dep:@lexical/extension | AI (dependencies): @lexical/extension is a sibling package in the same Facebook/Meta Lexical monorepo, always published at the same version. Not a third-party risk. | ai |
Versions (showing 18 of 118)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 0.3.2 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.3.1 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.3.0 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.2.9 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.2.8 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.2.7 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.2.6 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.2.5 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.2.4 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.2.3 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.2.2 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.2.1 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.2.0 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.1.21 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.1.20 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.1.19 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.1.18 | 0 / 0 | |
| 0.1.17 | 0 / 0 |
v0.3.2
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (zurfyx) than the most recent previously approved version (trueadm) on 2022-06-06, but zurfyx 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.
v0.3.1
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (fantactuka) than the most recent previously approved version (trueadm) on 2022-06-03, but fantactuka 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.
v0.3.0
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (trueadm) than the most recent previously approved version (acywatson) on 2022-06-02, but trueadm 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.
v0.2.9
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (thegreatercurve) than the most recent previously approved version (acywatson) on 2022-05-11, but thegreatercurve 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.
v0.2.8
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (acywatson) than the most recent previously approved version (fantactuka) on 2022-05-11, but acywatson 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.
v0.2.7
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.6
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.5
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (zurfyx) than the most recent previously approved version (fantactuka) on 2022-04-28, but zurfyx 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.
v0.2.4
2 findingsThis version was published by a different npm account (fantactuka) than the most recent previously approved version (zurfyx) on 2022-04-21. It has since remained available on npm for 1551 days without being unpublished, which is inconsistent with an account takeover — those are typically removed by npm shortly after discovery.
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.3
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (acywatson) than the most recent previously approved version (zurfyx) on 2022-04-19, but acywatson 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.
v0.2.2
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (zurfyx) than the most recent previously approved version (acywatson) on 2022-04-18, but zurfyx 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.
v0.2.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.2.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.21
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (trueadm) than the most recent previously approved version (acywatson) on 2022-04-12, but trueadm 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.
v0.1.20
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (acywatson) than the most recent previously approved version (trueadm) on 2022-04-07, but acywatson 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.
v0.1.19
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (acywatson) than the most recent previously approved version (trueadm) on 2022-04-07, but acywatson 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.
v0.1.18
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.1.17
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.