You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Originally I called this osv-detector because I felt "auditor" and "scanner" were a bit overloaded, and I was considering if this was to be published as a package somewhere, osv-detector would be less likely to have already been taken.
However, I'm now thinking if it would be better to call it something else for a few reasons:
Go packages/binaries are not restricted to unique names, and osv-detector might not be as easy to find as say "security-auditor"
osv-detector is sort of wrong, as this tool isn't for "detecting OSVs"...
But the real blocker for me is what to actually call it instead - I'd prefer to not use "lockfile" (e.g lockfile-auditor) because that'd put us back in the same place if we start auditing more than them (but then maybe it's fine?)
Originally I called this
osv-detectorbecause I felt "auditor" and "scanner" were a bit overloaded, and I was considering if this was to be published as a package somewhere,osv-detectorwould be less likely to have already been taken.However, I'm now thinking if it would be better to call it something else for a few reasons:
I'm thinking about additional checks we could be doing, like Support checking if things are approaching EOL with endoflife.date #75(I don't think this is probably worth it)osv-detectormight not be as easy to find as say "security-auditor"osv-detectoris sort of wrong, as this tool isn't for "detecting OSVs"...But the real blocker for me is what to actually call it instead - I'd prefer to not use "lockfile" (e.g
lockfile-auditor) because that'd put us back in the same place if we start auditing more than them (but then maybe it's fine?)