Credibility is an easier check but still tricky. Many of the package are uploaded by anonymous or pseudonymous authors, so there's no easy way to even tie that to an IRL identity, let alone check for credibility.

I'd agree that a curated small package repository would be a better way to address the problem, but the market doesn't seem very interested in that as a solution.

I think it might just not have happened yet. The npm community can be pretty creative and enthusiastic!

I don't think IRL identities are necessary for what I imagine. It's more like establishing a basic set of packages that have been around, have communities of committers, reverse dependencies, etc.

Maybe we would even make a starting assumption that the transitive closure of dependencies originating with a set of high profile packages are "approved".

I'm thinking aloud but I think there could be a reasonably pragmatic way to get this started...

So, apologies for being a bit cynical here, but I don't see this one being addressed any time soon.

it's been at least 5 years since npm started getting scrutiny relating to security weaknesses https://blog.andyet.com/2012/03/08/compromising-the-integrit...

and 4 years since Rubygems was compromised http://blog.rubygems.org/2013/01/31/data-verification.html

and yet, I don't see substantial movements relating to package security and trustability in these repo's. To be clear I'm not suggesting these two are any worse than others, they're just large repo's who have had incidents in the past.

The problem here (to my view) is that increasing the security of package repo's will slow down releases (additional checks take time) and cost money (additional security, hosting etc) and until there's a market demand for those service, they won't happen.

I'm skeptical too. But if I think like a sci-fi writer I can vaguely imagine ways for it to actually happen. That open source maintenance happens at all is pretty remarkable, so I think this thing, with an appropriate concept and some good tools (with emojis in their command line output), is at least vaguely plausible...

I don't see any reason it can't be done, either, in theory, and that's with the manual approach. Fancier ideas are viable too, but 500k is still relatively tiny and a manually tractable number. Incremental reviews starting today by many coordinating groups in the node community would take a while to complete, maybe a few years, but with some sensible ordering heuristics like e.g. the most downloaded first, or the most suspicious names first, some value could be produced quickly. But it won't happen, package vetting isn't really a value in these communities. (And that might not really be a bad thing, at least for now...)