{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"socket-dev","slug":"socket-dev","name":"Socket.dev","type":"product","url":"https://socket.dev","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/socket-dev","categories":["code-review-security"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"free","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"socket-dev__cap_0","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.deep.package.inspection.for.malware.detection","name":"deep-package-inspection-for-malware-detection","description":"Analyzes npm and PyPI packages at the bytecode and AST level to detect obfuscated code, hidden install scripts, and suspicious patterns that static analysis alone would miss. Uses multi-layered inspection combining AST parsing, string deobfuscation, and behavioral pattern matching to identify malicious payloads before installation.","intents":["I need to know if a dependency I'm about to install contains malware or obfuscated code","I want to detect packages that have been compromised post-publication with injected malicious code","I need to identify install-time attacks that execute scripts during npm/pip install"],"best_for":["security-conscious development teams managing large dependency trees","enterprises with strict supply chain security requirements","open-source maintainers vetting community contributions"],"limitations":["Detection is signature and heuristic-based — novel obfuscation techniques may evade detection","Analysis latency increases with package size; very large packages (>50MB) may timeout","Cannot detect logic bombs that only trigger under specific runtime conditions not present in static analysis"],"requires":["Package published to npm registry or PyPI","Network access to Socket.dev API or self-hosted instance","Package must be publicly available (private registries require additional configuration)"],"input_types":["package-name-and-version","package-manifest (package.json, requirements.txt)","dependency-lock-files (package-lock.json, poetry.lock)"],"output_types":["risk-score (numeric 0-100)","threat-classification (malware, typosquatting, supply-chain-risk)","detailed-findings (obfuscated-code-locations, suspicious-scripts, behavioral-flags)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","supply-chain-security"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"socket-dev__cap_1","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.typosquatting.and.package.confusion.detection","name":"typosquatting-and-package-confusion-detection","description":"Identifies packages that mimic legitimate library names through character substitution, homoglyph attacks, or namespace confusion (e.g., 'lodash' vs 'lodash-es' vs 'lodash_es'). Uses edit-distance algorithms and visual similarity scoring combined with reputation analysis to flag suspicious package names before they're installed.","intents":["I want to catch typos in my dependency declarations that could install malicious lookalike packages","I need to detect if a package name is suspiciously similar to a popular library I'm trying to use","I want to prevent developers on my team from accidentally installing homoglyph-attack packages"],"best_for":["teams with large onboarding or high developer turnover (more typos)","organizations managing monorepos with hundreds of dependencies","security teams implementing zero-trust dependency policies"],"limitations":["Requires baseline of 'legitimate' package names — new packages may be flagged as suspicious until reputation is established","Homoglyph detection is font-dependent and may vary across terminals/IDEs","Cannot distinguish between intentional forks/variants and malicious lookalikes without additional context"],"requires":["Package name to be checked against Socket.dev's package registry index","Access to Socket.dev API or CLI integration","Baseline reputation data for comparison (automatically maintained by Socket.dev)"],"input_types":["package-name-string","package-manifest-file"],"output_types":["similarity-score (0-100)","suggested-legitimate-alternatives","risk-classification (typosquatting, namespace-confusion, homoglyph-attack)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","supply-chain-security"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"socket-dev__cap_2","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.telemetry.and.tracking.code.detection","name":"telemetry-and-tracking-code-detection","description":"Scans package source code and dependencies for embedded telemetry, analytics, and tracking code that phones home without explicit user consent. Identifies API calls to analytics services, beacon URLs, and data exfiltration patterns by analyzing network calls and data serialization in package code.","intents":["I want to know if a dependency is collecting usage data or telemetry about my application","I need to audit packages for privacy violations or unauthorized data collection","I want to ensure dependencies comply with GDPR/CCPA by not embedding tracking code"],"best_for":["privacy-focused organizations and teams","companies in regulated industries (healthcare, finance, EU-based)","open-source projects with strict privacy policies"],"limitations":["Cannot detect telemetry that only activates at runtime under specific conditions not present in static analysis","Obfuscated telemetry URLs may evade detection if sufficiently encoded","False positives possible for legitimate analytics in development/debug code paths"],"requires":["Package source code accessible (published to npm/PyPI with source included)","Socket.dev API access or CLI tool","Package must not use extreme obfuscation that defeats string analysis"],"input_types":["package-name-and-version","source-code-repository-url"],"output_types":["telemetry-findings (detected-endpoints, data-types-collected)","privacy-risk-score","list-of-tracking-domains-and-services"],"categories":["safety-moderation","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"socket-dev__cap_3","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.package.provenance.and.publisher.reputation.verification","name":"package-provenance-and-publisher-reputation-verification","description":"Verifies package authenticity by analyzing publisher identity, publication history, and behavioral patterns to detect account hijacking or impersonation. Tracks publisher reputation across versions, flags sudden changes in maintainer identity, and identifies packages published by newly-created accounts with suspicious characteristics.","intents":["I want to verify that a package update actually came from the legitimate maintainer and wasn't published by a hijacked account","I need to detect if a popular package has been taken over by a malicious actor","I want to flag packages published by brand-new accounts that claim to be established libraries"],"best_for":["teams using pinned dependency versions and wanting to validate updates before upgrading","security teams implementing strict vendor verification policies","organizations managing critical infrastructure dependencies"],"limitations":["Requires historical data on publisher — new legitimate packages may be flagged as suspicious","Cannot detect sophisticated account takeovers where attacker maintains legitimate publishing patterns","Relies on npm/PyPI metadata which can be incomplete or manipulated"],"requires":["Package published to npm or PyPI with public metadata","Socket.dev historical database of publisher activity","Access to package registry metadata (automatically available)"],"input_types":["package-name","package-version-range"],"output_types":["publisher-reputation-score","account-age-and-history","anomaly-flags (sudden-maintainer-change, new-account-publishing, unusual-version-jump)","risk-assessment"],"categories":["safety-moderation","supply-chain-security"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"socket-dev__cap_4","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.dependency.tree.risk.aggregation.and.transitive.threat.analysis","name":"dependency-tree-risk-aggregation-and-transitive-threat-analysis","description":"Analyzes entire dependency trees (including transitive dependencies) to calculate cumulative risk scores and identify high-risk paths through the dependency graph. Uses graph traversal to find all packages reachable from direct dependencies and flags if any transitive dependency introduces unacceptable risk.","intents":["I want to know the total security risk of my entire dependency tree, not just direct dependencies","I need to identify which transitive dependency is introducing risk and whether I can remove it by changing a direct dependency","I want to understand the blast radius if a specific transitive dependency is compromised"],"best_for":["teams managing large monorepos with complex dependency graphs","security teams implementing zero-trust policies across all dependencies","organizations needing to justify dependency choices to compliance auditors"],"limitations":["Transitive dependency analysis requires lock files (package-lock.json, poetry.lock) — cannot infer from package.json alone","Risk aggregation is additive — doesn't account for dependencies that mitigate each other's risks","Large dependency trees (>1000 packages) may have analysis latency of several seconds"],"requires":["Lock file (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, poetry.lock, or Gemfile.lock)","Socket.dev API access","All transitive dependencies must be publicly available"],"input_types":["lock-file","package-manifest"],"output_types":["dependency-tree-visualization","cumulative-risk-score","high-risk-paths (list of dependency chains leading to risky packages)","remediation-suggestions (alternative dependencies with lower risk)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"socket-dev__cap_5","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.ci.cd.integration.with.automated.blocking.policies","name":"ci-cd-integration-with-automated-blocking-policies","description":"Integrates with CI/CD pipelines (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins) to automatically block pull requests or deployments if dependencies violate configurable security policies. Enforces rules like 'no packages with risk score >50' or 'no packages from new publishers' and provides detailed reports in PR comments.","intents":["I want to prevent developers from merging PRs that add risky dependencies without explicit security review","I need to enforce organization-wide dependency policies across all projects automatically","I want detailed security reports in PR comments so developers understand why a dependency was blocked"],"best_for":["teams with strict security requirements and multiple projects","organizations wanting to shift security left into the development workflow","enterprises needing audit trails of all dependency decisions"],"limitations":["Requires CI/CD platform integration — not all platforms supported equally","Policy enforcement is binary (block/allow) — no built-in gradual rollout or exception workflows","False positives in risk detection can lead to policy override fatigue"],"requires":["GitHub, GitLab, or Jenkins instance with API access","Socket.dev API key and CLI tool installed in CI environment","Ability to define and store policy configuration (YAML or JSON)"],"input_types":["pull-request-diff","package-manifest-changes","policy-configuration-file"],"output_types":["ci-status-check (pass/fail)","pr-comment-with-detailed-findings","audit-log-entry","remediation-suggestions"],"categories":["automation-workflow","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"socket-dev__cap_6","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.real.time.vulnerability.monitoring.and.alert.streaming","name":"real-time-vulnerability-monitoring-and-alert-streaming","description":"Continuously monitors installed packages for newly-discovered vulnerabilities and behavioral anomalies, pushing alerts in real-time via webhooks or email. Uses a streaming architecture to detect when a previously-safe package becomes compromised and notifies teams immediately rather than waiting for scheduled scans.","intents":["I want to be notified immediately if a package I'm using is discovered to be malicious","I need to know when a new vulnerability is published for a dependency I'm using","I want to set up alerts for specific risk thresholds so I'm not overwhelmed with notifications"],"best_for":["security teams managing production systems with strict SLAs","organizations needing rapid incident response to supply chain attacks","teams using long-lived dependencies that need continuous monitoring"],"limitations":["Real-time monitoring requires continuous API polling or webhook infrastructure — adds operational complexity","Alert fatigue possible if thresholds are too sensitive; requires tuning per organization","Cannot retroactively detect compromises that occurred before monitoring was enabled"],"requires":["Socket.dev API key with monitoring permissions","Webhook endpoint or email address for receiving alerts","Continuous network connectivity to Socket.dev service"],"input_types":["package-list-to-monitor","alert-threshold-configuration","webhook-url-or-email"],"output_types":["real-time-alert-webhook-payload","email-notification","dashboard-update"],"categories":["automation-workflow","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"socket-dev__cap_7","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.package.license.compliance.and.legal.risk.assessment","name":"package-license-compliance-and-legal-risk-assessment","description":"Analyzes package licenses and legal metadata to flag compliance risks, GPL/AGPL contamination, and incompatible license combinations. Identifies packages with restrictive licenses that may conflict with your project's licensing model and provides remediation suggestions.","intents":["I want to ensure all my dependencies have licenses compatible with my project's license","I need to detect if any transitive dependency has a GPL license that would contaminate my proprietary code","I want to audit my dependency tree for legal/licensing risks before open-sourcing a project"],"best_for":["commercial software companies with strict licensing policies","open-source projects needing to maintain license compatibility","legal/compliance teams auditing software supply chains"],"limitations":["License detection relies on package metadata which may be incomplete or incorrect","Cannot detect unlicensed code or code with non-standard license formats","License compatibility rules are complex and context-dependent — automated analysis may miss edge cases"],"requires":["Package published with license metadata (LICENSE file or package.json license field)","Socket.dev API access","Configurable license policy (whitelist/blacklist of acceptable licenses)"],"input_types":["package-name","dependency-tree","license-policy-configuration"],"output_types":["license-compliance-report","incompatible-license-list","alternative-packages-with-compatible-licenses"],"categories":["safety-moderation","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"socket-dev__cap_8","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.package.source.code.repository.integrity.verification","name":"package-source-code-repository-integrity-verification","description":"Verifies that published packages match their source code repositories by comparing checksums, commit hashes, and build artifacts. Detects when a package's published version differs from what's in the source repository, indicating potential tampering or build-time injection attacks.","intents":["I want to verify that the npm package I'm installing matches the source code in the GitHub repository","I need to detect if a package has been modified after publication (build-time attacks)","I want to ensure reproducible builds so I can verify package integrity independently"],"best_for":["security-conscious teams using critical infrastructure dependencies","organizations implementing zero-trust supply chain policies","maintainers wanting to prove package integrity to users"],"limitations":["Requires package to have publicly-linked source repository — private repos not supported","Build process must be deterministic and reproducible — complex build pipelines may not match","Cannot detect attacks that occur at the registry level (npm/PyPI servers compromised)"],"requires":["Package with publicly-linked source repository (GitHub, GitLab, etc.)","Build artifacts or checksums published with package","Socket.dev API access"],"input_types":["package-name-and-version","source-repository-url"],"output_types":["integrity-verification-result (pass/fail)","checksum-comparison-report","build-artifact-analysis","tampering-detection-flags"],"categories":["safety-moderation","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"socket-dev__cap_9","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.package.update.risk.assessment.and.safe.upgrade.recommendations","name":"package-update-risk-assessment-and-safe-upgrade-recommendations","description":"Analyzes package updates to identify breaking changes, security improvements, and risk factors before upgrading. Compares old and new versions to detect suspicious changes in dependencies, code size, or maintainer identity, and recommends safe upgrade paths.","intents":["I want to know if upgrading a package will introduce new security risks or breaking changes","I need to identify the safest version to upgrade to when multiple versions are available","I want to understand what changed between versions before upgrading in production"],"best_for":["teams managing long-lived applications with frequent dependency updates","security teams needing to validate updates before deploying to production","developers wanting to minimize upgrade risk"],"limitations":["Requires both old and new package versions to be available for comparison","Cannot detect breaking changes that don't appear in code analysis (e.g., API behavior changes)","Upgrade recommendations are heuristic-based and may not account for application-specific requirements"],"requires":["Current package version installed","Target package version available in registry","Socket.dev API access"],"input_types":["current-package-version","target-package-version","package-manifest"],"output_types":["upgrade-risk-score","change-summary (new-dependencies, removed-dependencies, code-changes)","breaking-change-detection","safe-upgrade-recommendations"],"categories":["safety-moderation","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"socket-dev__headline","uri":"capability://code.review.security.open.source.package.security.platform","name":"open-source package security platform","description":"A supply chain security platform that identifies and mitigates risks from compromised and malicious open-source packages before they enter your codebase, ensuring safer software development.","intents":["best open-source package security tools","open-source security for npm and PyPI","how to detect malicious packages in code","top tools for supply chain security","preventing typosquatting in dependencies"],"best_for":["developers using npm or PyPI"],"limitations":[],"requires":[],"input_types":[],"output_types":[],"categories":["code-review-security"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":54,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Package published to npm registry or PyPI","Network access to Socket.dev API or self-hosted instance","Package must be publicly available (private registries require additional configuration)","Package name to be checked against Socket.dev's package registry index","Access to Socket.dev API or CLI integration","Baseline reputation data for comparison (automatically maintained by Socket.dev)","Package source code accessible (published to npm/PyPI with source included)","Socket.dev API access or CLI tool","Package must not use extreme obfuscation that defeats string analysis","Package published to npm or PyPI with public metadata"],"failure_modes":["Detection is signature and heuristic-based — novel obfuscation techniques may evade detection","Analysis latency increases with package size; very large packages (>50MB) may timeout","Cannot detect logic bombs that only trigger under specific runtime conditions not present in static analysis","Requires baseline of 'legitimate' package names — new packages may be flagged as suspicious until reputation is established","Homoglyph detection is font-dependent and may vary across terminals/IDEs","Cannot distinguish between intentional forks/variants and malicious lookalikes without additional context","Cannot detect telemetry that only activates at runtime under specific conditions not present in static analysis","Obfuscated telemetry URLs may evade detection if sufficiently encoded","False positives possible for legitimate analytics in development/debug code paths","Requires historical data on publisher — new legitimate packages may be flagged as suspicious","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.7,"quality":0.9,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:28.695Z","last_scraped_at":null,"last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=socket-dev","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=socket-dev"}},"signature":"9dUbpoQceMVsMZcR8DpAOlidXA3zRSz4MF27f4vORPwB8fJTu2/XFweRjyN8ws+0f8bCqWPWOe+m8yQFGxHDCg==","signedAt":"2026-06-20T08:17:47.487Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/socket-dev","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/socket-dev","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=socket-dev","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}