+
+| A
+ | Producer
+ | SpySheriff: Software producer purports to offer anti-spyware software, but that software is actually malicious.
+ | SLSA does not directly address this threat but could make it easier to discover malicious behavior in open source software, by forcing it into the publicly available source code.
+For closed source software SLSA does not provide any solutions for malicious producers.
+ |
+| B
+ | Authoring & reviewing
+ | SushiSwap: Contractor with repository access pushed a malicious commit redirecting cryptocurrency to themself.
+ | Two-person review could have caught the unauthorized change.
+ |
+| C
+ | Source code management
+ | PHP: Attacker compromised PHP's self-hosted git server and injected two malicious commits.
+ | A better-protected source code system would have been a much harder target for the attackers.
+ |
+| D
+ | External build parameters
+ | The Great Suspender: Attacker published software that was not built from the purported sources.
+ | A SLSA-compliant build server would have produced provenance identifying the actual sources used, allowing consumers to detect such tampering.
+ |
+| E
+ | Build process
+ | SolarWinds: Attacker compromised the build platform and installed an implant that injected malicious behavior during each build.
+ | Higher SLSA Build levels have stronger security requirements for the build platform, making it more difficult for an attacker to forge the SLSA provenance and gain persistence.
+ |
+| F
+ | Artifact publication
+ | CodeCov: Attacker used leaked credentials to upload a malicious artifact to a GCS bucket, from which users download directly.
+ | Provenance of the artifact in the GCS bucket would have shown that the artifact was not built in the expected manner from the expected source repo.
+ |
+| G
+ | Distribution channel
+ | Attacks on Package Mirrors: Researcher ran mirrors for several popular package registries, which could have been used to serve malicious packages.
+ | Similar to above (F), provenance of the malicious artifacts would have shown that they were not built as expected or from the expected source repo.
+ |
+| H
+ | Package selection
+ | Browserify typosquatting: Attacker uploaded a malicious package with a similar name as the original.
+ | SLSA does not directly address this threat, but provenance linking back to source control can enable and enhance other solutions.
+ |
+| I
+ | Usage
+ | Default credentials: Attacker could leverage default credentials to access sensitive data.
+ | SLSA does not address this threat.
+ |
+| N/A
+ | Dependency threats (i.e. A-H, recursively)
+ | event-stream: Attacker controls an innocuous dependency and publishes a malicious binary version without a corresponding update to the source code.
+ | Applying SLSA recursively to all dependencies would prevent this particular vector, because the provenance would indicate that it either wasn't built from a proper builder or that the binary did not match the source.
+ |