tcp-port-used
A simple Node.js module to check if a TCP port is already bound.
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
Keywords
Accepted risks
Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.
| Source | Rule | Reason | Accepted by | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| email-domain | unclaimed-email:stdarg.com | AI (email-domain): Package is 4500+ days old with a clean publisher history (33/0). Domain lapse is a theoretical risk but no other compromise indicators exist across any version. | ai | |
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): Mature package predating Sigstore provenance; no CI/CD provenance is expected for packages of this age and publishing pattern. | ai |
Versions (showing 12 of 12)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0.2 | 2 / 1 | |
| 1.0.1 | 2 / 1 | |
| 1.0.0 | 2 / 1 | |
| 0.1.2 | 3 / 1 | |
| 0.1.1 | 3 / 1 | |
| 0.1.0 | 3 / 1 | |
| 0.0.7 | 3 / 1 | |
| 0.0.6 | 3 / 1 | |
| 0.0.5 | 3 / 1 | |
| 0.0.3 | 3 / 1 | |
| 0.0.2 | 2 / 1 | |
| 0.0.1 | 2 / 1 |
v1.0.2
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'stdarg.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.0.1
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'stdarg.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.0.0
2 findingsMaintainer email '[email protected]' uses domain 'stdarg.com' which has no DNS records. An attacker could register this domain to hijack the maintainer identity.
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.7
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.6
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.5
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.