zlacker

[return to "Notepad++ supply chain attack breakdown"]
1. the_ha+AG1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 12:00:33
>>natebc+(OP)
This attack highlights a broader pattern: developers and users increasingly trust code they haven't personally reviewed.

Supply chain attacks work because we implicitly trust the update channel. But the same trust assumption appears in other places:

- npm/pip packages where we `npm install` without auditing - AI-generated code that gets committed after a quick glance - The growing "vibe coding" trend where entire features are scaffolded by AI

The Notepad++ case is almost a best-case scenario — it's a single binary from a known source. The attack surface multiplies when you consider modern dev workflows with hundreds of transitive dependencies, or projects where significant portions were AI-generated and only superficially reviewed.

Sandboxing helps, but the real issue is the gap between what code can do and what developers expect it to do. We need better tooling for understanding what we're actually running.

◧◩
2. 112233+4P1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 13:04:08
>>the_ha+AG1
> increasingly trust code they haven't personally reviewed

while the problems you describe are valid, my personal experience is fully opposite — trust is decreasing. I do not remember anyone worrying about supply chain 15ish years ago — windows was where the viruses lived, and unix people were installing distros, compiling kernel modules and building tarballs without auditing anything.

[go to top]