@internetarchive/collection-browser
The Internet Archive Collection Browser.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:@internetarchive/iaux-item-metadata | AI (phantom-deps): Same-org scoped package declared as dep but not directly imported; common in component libraries for type re-exports. Benign for this package. | ai | |
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): Established Internet Archive package with 889 versions; lack of provenance attestation is common and not a risk signal here. | ai |
Versions (showing 18 of 18)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 4.5.0 | 16 / 30 | |
| 4.4.1 | 16 / 30 | |
| 4.4.0 | 16 / 30 | |
| 4.3.1 | 16 / 30 | |
| 4.3.0 | 16 / 30 | |
| 4.2.0 | 16 / 30 | |
| 4.1.4 | 16 / 30 | |
| 4.1.2 | 16 / 30 | |
| 3.3.1 | 15 / 27 | |
| 3.1.0 | 15 / 27 | |
| 3.0.5 | 15 / 27 | |
| 3.0.4 | 15 / 27 | |
| 3.0.3 | 15 / 27 | |
| 3.0.2 | 15 / 27 | |
| 3.0.1 | 15 / 27 | |
| 3.0.0 | 15 / 27 | |
| 2.22.1 | 15 / 27 | |
| 2.22.0 | 15 / 27 |
v4.5.0
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 (latonv) than the most recent previously approved version (dualcnhq) on 2026-06-11, but latonv 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.
v4.4.1
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 (dualcnhq) than the most recent previously approved version (latonv) on 2026-06-09, but dualcnhq 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.
v4.4.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v4.3.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v4.3.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v4.2.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v4.1.2
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v3.3.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v3.1.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v3.0.5
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v3.0.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v3.0.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v3.0.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v3.0.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v3.0.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.22.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v2.22.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.