@socketsecurity/cli-with-sentry@1.6.2
⚠ Under reviewCLI for Socket.dev, includes Sentry error handling, otherwise identical to the regular `socket` package
AI Security Review
scanned 24d ago · by lpm-firewall-aiInspected source supports ordinary CLI launch behavior and expected registry authentication handling, while the flagged terminal evaluation appears tied to terminfo formatting. Required review coverage remains unresolved for a non-UTF-8 Java archive, so the evidence does not support a clean verdict or a confirmed attack.
Decision evidence
public snapshot- The package exposes command-line entrypoints that launch its bundled CLI when invoked.
- The registry library reads configured registry authentication values for npm operations; inspected excerpts do not establish an unrelated credential destination.
- The flagged terminal library compiles generated terminfo formatting code, a capability consistent with terminal handling.
- A shipped Java archive is non-UTF-8 and cannot be evaluated through the available source citation path, leaving required review coverage incomplete.
- The inspected launcher delegates to the package's own CLI and forwards command-line arguments and environment.
- The manifest identifies the package as a Socket CLI variant and declares the CLI bundle as its entrypoint.
- No inspected source excerpt establishes credential theft, malicious install behavior, or another concrete attack.
Source & flagged code
17 flaggedPackage source references dynamic code evaluation.
external/blessed/lib/tput.jsView on unpkg · L1152Findings
Affected versions and remediation
This report applies to @socketsecurity/cli-with-sentry@1.6.2.
See all versions of @socketsecurity/cli-with-sentry for other recorded verdicts.
- Review the evidence and your use of @socketsecurity/cli-with-sentry@1.6.2 before allowing it. Restrict the permissions described in this report.
- Choose an independently verified alternative or release. This report does not establish that other versions are safe.
Evidence last updated: .
Think this verdict is wrong? Dispute it on GitHub or read how reports are produced.