5 ms·
They absolutely do. In this case litellm 1.82.8 had been out for at least a week (can’t recall the exact date offhand). The compromised version was a replacemen
by ctmnt 6mo ago
They absolutely do. In this case litellm 1.82.8 had been out for at least a week (can’t recall the exact date offhand). The compromised version was a replacement.
- dot_treo 6mo agoIt actually wasn't. That was one of the reasons why I looked into what was changed. Even 1.82.6 is only at an RC release on github since just before the incident. So the fact that 1.82.7 and then 1.82.8 were released within an hour of each other was highly suspicious.
- cpburns2009 6mo ago1.82.7 and 1.82.8 were only up for about 3 hours before they were quarantined on PyPI.
- ctmnt 6mo agoAh, my mistake! Thanks for the correction. But I believe you can replace versions on both, nonetheless. It’s a multi step process, unpublish then publish again. But the net effect is the same.
- collinmanderson 6mo agoIf you lock your dependencies, it should fail if the hash doesn't match.
- xenophonf 6mo agoPyPI enforces immutable releases. https://pypi.org/help/#file-name-reuse https://pypi.org/help/#file-name-reuse > PyPI does not allow for a filename to be reused, even once a project has been deleted and recreated... > This ensures that a given distribution for a given release for a given project will always resolve to the same file, and cannot be surreptitiously changed one day by the projects maintainer or a malicious party (it can only be removed).