Comment by duped
2 months ago
Personally, I go further than this and just never update dependencies unless the dependency has a bug that affects my usage of it. Vulnerabilities are included.
It is insane to me how many developers update dependencies in a project regularly. You should almost never be updating dependencies, when you do it should be because it fixes a bug (including a security issue) that you have in your project, or a new feature that you need to use.
The only time this philosophy has bitten me was in an older project where I had to convince a PM who built some node project on their machine that the vulnerability warnings were not actually issues that affected our project.
Edit: because I don't want to reply to three things with the same comment - what are you using for dependencies where a) you require frequent updates and b) those updates are really hard?
Like for example, I've avoided updating node dependencies that have "vulnerabilities" because I know the vuln doesn't affect me. Rarely do I need to update to support new features because the dependency I pick has the features I need when I choose to use it (and if it only supports partial usage, you write it yourself!). If I see that a dependency frequently has bugs or breakages across updates then I stop using it, or freeze my usage of it.
Then you run the risk of drifting so much behind that when you actually have to upgrade it becomes a gargantuan task. Both ends of the scale have problems.
That's why there's an emphasis on stability. If things works fine, don't change. If you're applying security patches, don't break the API.
In NPM world, there's so much churn that it would be comical if not for the security aspects.
That's only a problem for you, the developer, though, and is merely an annoyance about time spent. And it's all stuff you had to do anyway to update--you're just doing it all at once instead of spread out over time. A supply chain malware attack is a problem for every one of your users--who will all leave you once the dust is settled--and you end up in headline news at the top of HN's front page. These problems are not comparable. One is a rough day. The other is the end of your project.
The time upgrading is not linear, it’s exponential. If it hurts, do it more often! https://martinfowler.com/bliki/FrequencyReducesDifficulty.ht...
A log4j level vulnerability happens again. Do you need 10 minutes to update? 1 hour? 1 day? 1 week? Multiple months? The more you are drifting behind on updates, the worse it gets, which also affects every one of your users, your business, and might be the end of your project.
1 reply →
counterpoint, if the runtime itself (nodejs) has a critical issue, you haven't updated for years, you're on an end-of-life version, and you cannot upgrade because you have dependencies that do not support the new version of the runtime, you're in for a painful day. The argument for updating often is that when you -are- exposed to a vulnerability that you need a fix for, it's a much smaller project to revert or patch that single issue.
Otherwise, I agree with the sentiment that too many people try to update the world too often. Keeping up with runtime updates as often as possible (node.js is more trusted than any given NPM module) and updating only when dependencies are no longer compatible is a better middle ground.
The same logic you used for runtimes also applies to libraries. Vulnerabilities are found in popular JS libraries all the time. The surface area is, of course, smaller than that of a runtime like Node.js, but there is still lots of potential for security issues with out-of-date libraries.
There really is no good solution other than to reduce the surface area for vulnerabilities by reducing the total amount of code you depend on (including third-party code). In practice, this means using as few dependencies as possible. If you only use one or two functions from lodash or some other helper library, you're probably better off writing or pulling in those functions directly instead.
Fully disagree. The problem is that when you do need to upgrade, either for a bug fix, security fix, or new feature that you need/want, it's a lot easier to upgrade if your last upgrade was 3 months ago than if it was 3 years ago.
This has bitten me so many times (usually at large orgs where policy is to be conservative about upgrades) that I can't even consider not upgrading all my dependencies at least once a quarter.
yeah, I typically start any substantial development work with getting things up to date so you're not building on something you'll find out is already broken when you do get around to that painful upgrade.
this seems to me to be trading one problem that might happen for one that is guaranteed: a very painful upgrade. Maybe you only do it once in a while but it will always suck.
The problem here is that there might be a bug fix or even security fix that is not backported to old versions, and you suddenly have to update to a much newer version in a short time
That works fine if you have few dependencies (obviously this is a good practice) and you have time to vet all updates and determine whether a vulnerability impacts your particular code, but that doesn’t scale if you’re a security organization at, say, a small company.
Dependency hell exists at both ends. Too quick can bite you just as much as being too slow/lazy.