convex-test
Supply chain provenance
Status for the latest visible version.
Without SLSA provenance there is no cryptographic link between this tarball and the public source, so a manually published version cannot be tied back to a reviewed commit.
Maintainers
Keywords
Accepted risks
Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.
| Source | Rule | Reason | Accepted by | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): Package has no history of provenance attestation; stable false positive for this package. | ai |
Versions (showing 38 of 38)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0.53 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.52 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.51 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.50 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.49 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.48 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.47 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.46 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.45 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.44 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.43 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.41 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.40 | 0 / 15 | |
| 0.0.39 | 0 / 11 | |
| 0.0.38 | 0 / 10 | |
| 0.0.37 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.36 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.35 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.34 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.33 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.32 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.31 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.30 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.29 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.28 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.27 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.26 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.25 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.24 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.23 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.22 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.21 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.20 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.19 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.18 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.17 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.16 | 0 / 9 | |
| 0.0.15 | 0 / 6 |
v0.0.36
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 (sshader) than the most recent previously approved version (ldanilek) on 2025-02-25, but sshader 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.
v0.0.35
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.34
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 (ldanilek) than the most recent previously approved version (sshader) on 2024-11-06, but ldanilek 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.
v0.0.33
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 (ldanilek) than the most recent previously approved version (sshader) on 2024-10-19, but ldanilek 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.
v0.0.32
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 (sshader) than the most recent previously approved version (ballingt) on 2024-10-03, but sshader 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.
v0.0.31
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 (sshader) than the most recent previously approved version (ballingt) on 2024-09-27, but sshader 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.
v0.0.30
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 (ballingt) than the most recent previously approved version (xixixao) on 2024-09-20, but ballingt 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.
v0.0.29
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 (ldanilek) than the most recent previously approved version (xixixao) on 2024-09-04, but ldanilek 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.
v0.0.28
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.27
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.26
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.25
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.24
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.23
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 (sshader) than the most recent previously approved version (xixixao) on 2024-07-10, but sshader 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.
v0.0.22
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 (xixixao) than the most recent previously approved version (sshader) on 2024-07-01, but xixixao 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.
v0.0.21
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 (sshader) than the most recent previously approved version (xixixao) on 2024-05-31, but sshader 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.
v0.0.20
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.19
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.18
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.17
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.16
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.15
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.