All jest-date-mock versions

jest-date-mock @1.0.11

rejected
This version was rejected. It did not pass GreenFlagged's security review and is not served by the registry. The findings and risk dispositions below explain why.
63
Risk Score
License
Yes
Install Scripts
0
Dependencies
6
Dev Dependencies
4.9 KB
Package Size
Published

Maintainers

atool

Keywords

mockjestjest-dateDatedatetimetimestamp

Dev Dependencies (6)

PackageConstraintRegistry Status
jest ^24.9.0 auto_approved
@babel/cli ^7.7.7 auto_approved
babel-jest ^24.9.0 auto_approved
@babel/core ^7.7.7 auto_approved
@babel/preset-env ^7.7.7 auto_approved
babel-plugin-version ^0.2.2 Not imported

Changes from v1.0.10

No metadata changes detected.

File Changes

0 added 0 removed 1 modified size delta: +.1 KB

Risk Dispositions (1 applicable to this version, 0 other)

Accepted rules are downgraded to INFO on future analyses; rejected rules escalate to CRITICAL.

Rule Source Disposition Author Reason
url-dep:@antv/setup npm-metadata reject AI AI (npm-metadata): Illegitimate GitHub dep in a Date-mock library; matches known supply-chain attack pattern.

SAST Findings (3)

HIGH SHA-pinned github dependency (optionalDependencies): @antv/setup npm-metadata

Dependency '@antv/setup' in `optionalDependencies` points to 'github:antvis/G2#dc3d62a2181beb9f326952a2d212900c94f2e13d' instead of a registry version. URL dependencies bypass the registry and can be swapped at any time. A 40-character commit SHA in a dependency URL is a strong supply-chain signal — the 2026-05-11 TanStack/Mini Shai-Hulud attack used this exact shape in `optionalDependencies` to smuggle a malicious payload past lifecycle-script and OSV checks.

HIGH Missing gitHead — previous versions had it provenance

This version has no gitHead field linking it to a source commit, but previous versions did. This suggests the publish environment changed. Published by: atool.

LOW No provenance attestation provenance

Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.

Review Summary

Risk score: 63. Findings: 2 high (+50), 1 medium (+10), 1 low (+3).

Published to npm: