@atlaskit/editor-tables
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): Atlassian's publishing pipeline does not use Sigstore provenance; this is consistent across all @atlaskit packages and is not a security concern. | ai |
Versions (showing 22 of 131)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 2.9.8 | 4 / 0 | |
| 2.9.7 | 4 / 0 | |
| 2.9.6 | 4 / 0 | |
| 2.9.5 | 4 / 0 | |
| 2.9.4 | 4 / 0 | |
| 2.9.3 | 4 / 0 | |
| 2.9.2 | 4 / 0 | |
| 2.9.1 | 4 / 0 | |
| 2.9.0 | 3 / 0 | |
| 2.8.6 | 3 / 0 | |
| 2.8.5 | 3 / 0 | |
| 2.8.4 | 3 / 0 | |
| 2.8.3 | 3 / 0 | |
| 2.8.2 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.8.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.8.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 2.7.5 | 2 / 1 | |
| 2.7.4 | 2 / 2 | |
| 2.7.3 | 2 / 2 | |
| 2.7.2 | 2 / 2 | |
| 2.7.1 | 2 / 2 | |
| 2.7.0 | 2 / 2 |
v2.9.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.9.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.9.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.6
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.5
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.8.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.7.5
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.7.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.7.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.7.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.7.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.7.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.