Skip to content

Conversation

@hughrawlinson
Copy link

@hughrawlinson hughrawlinson commented May 22, 2019

[email protected] uses [email protected], which has this advisory: https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/886

[email protected] resolved that vulnerability by removing dependencies on fstream.

I also bumped [email protected] to 2.1.1, which does the same as above.

The tests don't pass locally, but I'm hoping the reasons why become more clear by running on CI, so that I can resolve them.

Please feel free to close this if it doesn't make sense for some reason I haven't thought of (or of course for any other reason). Thank you all for all you do! 😄

@hughrawlinson hughrawlinson requested a review from a team as a code owner May 22, 2019 13:05
@brettz9
Copy link
Contributor

brettz9 commented Jun 10, 2019

Would be great to get this looked at, as npm audit is listing 12 high risk advisories resulting from these two packages (none of which is npm audit fix working to fix)...

@isaacs
Copy link
Contributor

isaacs commented Jun 26, 2019

Bumping to node-gyp v4 will take some more refactoring, but the fstream vuln will be fixed in the next release. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants