Papers › Dirty-Waters: Detecting Software Supply Chain Smells

Dirty-Waters: Detecting Software Supply Chain Smells

21 Oct 2024arXiv:2410.16049links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Raphina Liu, Sofia Bobadilla, Benoit Baudry, Martin Monperrus

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Using open-source dependencies is essential in modern software development. However, this practice implies significant trust in third-party code, while there is little support for developers to assess this trust. As a consequence, attacks have been increasingly occurring through third-party dependencies. These are called software supply chain attacks. In this paper, we target the problem of projects that use dependencies while unaware of the potential risks posed by their software supply chain. We define the novel concept of software supply chain smell and present Dirty-Waters, a novel tool for detecting software supply chain smells. We evaluate Dirty-Waters on three JavaScript projects across nine versions and demonstrate the prevalence of all proposed software supply chain smells. Not only are there smells in all projects, but there are many of them, which immediately reveal potential risks and provide clear indicators for developers to act on the security of their supply chain.

PaperPDFCode

Code

chains-project/dirty-waters officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections