@retailcrm/embed-ui-v1-components
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| publish-pattern | new-deps-added | AI (publish-pattern): fast-deep-equal is a well-known, safe replacement for lodash.isequal; no supply-chain risk. | ai | |
| dependencies | unvetted-dep:@retailcrm/image-preview | AI (dependencies): Same org (@retailcrm) as the publisher; consistent with their established package ecosystem. | ai | |
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): RetailCRM org package; provenance absence is common and no other risk signals present. | ai | |
| install-scripts | install-script:postinstall | AI (install-scripts): Runs node ./bin/postinstall.mjs; consistent with component library setup across 119 versions from established corporate publisher. | ai |
Versions (showing 29 of 29)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 0.9.25 | 6 / 29 | |
| 0.9.22 | 6 / 29 | |
| 0.9.19 | 6 / 30 | |
| 0.9.18 | 6 / 30 | |
| 0.9.17 | 6 / 30 | |
| 0.9.16 | 6 / 30 | |
| 0.9.15 | 6 / 30 | |
| 0.9.14 | 6 / 30 | |
| 0.9.13 | 6 / 28 | |
| 0.9.12 | 6 / 27 | |
| 0.9.11 | 6 / 27 | |
| 0.9.10 | 6 / 26 | |
| 0.9.9 | 6 / 26 | |
| 0.9.8 | 6 / 26 | |
| 0.9.7 | 6 / 26 | |
| 0.9.6 | 6 / 26 | |
| 0.9.5 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.9.4 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.9.3 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.9.2 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.9.1 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.9.0 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.8.4 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.8.3 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.8.2 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.8.1 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.8.0 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.7.0 | 6 / 33 | |
| 0.6.1 | 6 / 33 |
v0.9.25
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.22
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.19
2 findingsScript: node ./bin/postinstall.mjs
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.9.18
2 findingsScript: node ./bin/postinstall.mjs
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.9.17
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.16
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.15
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.14
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.13
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.12
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.11
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.10
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.9.9
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.8
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.9.7
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.6
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.9.5
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.4
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.9.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.2
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.9.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.8.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.8.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.8.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.8.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.8.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.7.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.6.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.