T08 · Insecure Dependencies
- Location
SKILL.md:5- Finding
Unpinned Third-Party Dependency Installation
- Content
View full analysis
Vulnerability Details
File Location:
SKILL.md:5andREADME.md:61-69
Vulnerability Type: Unpinned package installation from an external package registry
Risk Level: MediumVulnerable Code
SKILL.md:5:yaml metadata: {"openclaw":{"skillKey":"sift-gateway-reliable-tool-context","homepage":"https://github.com/lourencomaciel/sift-gateway/tree/main/docs/openclaw","requires":{"bins":["sift-gateway"]},"install":[{"id":"uv","kind":"uv","package":"sift-gateway","bins":["sift-gateway"],"label":"Install Sift Gateway (uv)"}]}}README.md:61-69:bash uv tool install sift-gatewayAlternative:
bash pipx install sift-gatewayTechnical Analysis
The skill metadata and installation documentation instruct users or supporting tooling to install
sift-gatewaywithout specifying an exact version, package hash, signature, lockfile, or immutable source revision. Consequently, installation resolves whatever release the configured package registry considers current at that time.This creates a supply-chain trust boundary that cannot be validated from the audited project. The project contains only documentation and skill instructions; it does not include the dependency's implementation for review. If the package publisher account, distribution infrastructure, or package itself were compromised, a malicious future release could be installed without requiring changes to this skill package.
Because the installed dependency provides command-line entry points and is intended to capture and process command output, compromise would be particularly sensitive: malicious dependency code could execute with the installing user's permissions and inspect data routed through the gateway.
Attack Path
- An attacker compromises the package publisher account, package registry distribution path, or a future
sift-gatewayrelease. - The attacker publishes a malicious release under the expected pa ...[truncated 1349 chars]
- An attacker compromises the package publisher account, package registry distribution path, or a future
- Remediation
View remediation
Remediation Suggestions
- Pin
sift-gatewayto an exact, reviewed version in both skill metadata and installation examples. - Ensure the metadata installation mechanism supports exact-version constraints; otherwise, provide a controlled installer that rejects unapproved versions.
- Verify package integrity using cryptographic hashes or signed release artifacts where supported.
- Maintain a lockfile or equivalent reproducible dependency manifest, including transitive dependencies.
- Document the approved package registry and avoid fallback to untrusted indexes.
- Add automated dependency monitoring and require security review before updating the approved version.
- Run the installed tool with least privilege and avoid exposing unrelated secrets or sensitive environment variables.
- Where practical, isolate command-output processing in a sandbox or restricted execution environment.
- Pin
