That sounds like a boil the ocean solution. We're never going to get all developers to be perfect, and besides there are evil devs as well so the solution has to be elsewhere.
The solution most people seem to be talking about is sandboxing imports off into containers (sandboxes, whatever - these will end up as containers) so that they can have their access to sensitive data and API's controlled. These aren't "code dependencies" any more, these are "runtime services". It implicitly conforms to "dependencies are bad" by forcing all dependencies to be external services. But it doesn't allow you to actually import known-good dependencies from trusted sources.
And specifically granting access permissions to code has always worked before, right? I mean, people never just click "allow" all the time so they're not bothered by security dialogs, do they? Why are we talking about implementing such a proven-bad solution yet again?
To be clear, is your argument that it's too hard for us to teach people to avoid granting unnecessary permissions, but not too hard for us to teach users not to install any software in the first place?
Educating users about permissions is hard, convincing users not to download anything is impossible.
Developers will just allow the bad code access to the things it says it needs, because it says it needs them. Meanwhile we have another sandbox layer to deal with, which isn't good.
We need to reduce the proliferation of dependencies, and only use them for important things, to reduce the attack surface. And we need to tighten up the package managers so typosquatting and duplication of interfaces is flagged (if not banned), and we need some kind of static analysis that flags what capabilities a library uses. And I'm sure there's lots more ways of solving it that I can't think of here.
What you're proposing here is infinitely harder than teaching users to be responsible with permissions. If you can't teach a developer not to grant code access to everything it asks for, you are not going to be able to teach them to install fewer dependencies. It just won't happen, it's completely unrealistic.
A lot of the solutions you're proposing have significant downsides, or they don't scale. Static analysis is great, but doesn't work in highly dynamic languages like Python, Javascript, and Lisp. It also can't handle ambiguously malicious behavior, like device fingerprinting. Static analysis is just a worse version of sandboxing with more holes and more guesswork. Manual reviews don't scale at all -- they're even more unrealistic of a solution than trusting developers to be frugal about the code they install. Tightening package names is nice, but again, not a silver bullet. Sometimes official libraries with official names go bad as well. We have a lot of solutions like this that we can observe in the wild, and they don't really work very well. Google Play still has malware, even though Google says they review apps and remove fraudulent submissions.
On the other hand, we actually have pretty good evidence that sandboxing at least helps -- namely, iOS and the web. Sandboxing isn't perfect, it's a very complicated UX/UI problem that I consider still somewhat unsolved. But, iOS is making decent progress here. Their recent permission reminder system periodically asks users if they want to continue granting permissions to an app -- that's really smart design. The web has also been making excellent progress for a long time. The web has a lot of flaws, but it is a gold standard for user-accessible sandboxing. Nobody thinks twice about clicking on a random link in Twitter, because they don't have to. There's obviously still a lot that needs to improve, but if the primary concern we had about malicious packages on PyPi was that they might mine bitcoin in the background, that would be a very large improvement over stealing SSH keys.
The reason sandboxing is so good is specifically because it shifts blame. Shifting blame is great. With the current situation, I need to audit the code and do research for every single app I install on my PC -- I have to decide whether the author is trustworthy. If the author isn't trustworthy, there's nothing I can do other than avoid their app entirely. This is complicated because trust isn't binary. So I can't just separate authors into "good" and "bad" categories, I have to grade them on a curve.
I do this. It's exhausting. A system where I manage permissions instead of granting each codebase a binary "trusted" label would be a massive improvement to my life, and it's crazy to me that people are in effect saying that we should keep dependencies terrible and exhausting for everyone just because the solution won't help users who are already going to ignore safeguards and install malware anyway.
Imagine if when multiuser systems were first proposed for Unix, somebody said, "yeah, but everyone's just going to grant sudo willy-nilly or share passwords, so why even separate accounts? Instead, we should encourage network admins to minimize the number of people with access to a remote system to just one or two." The current NodeJS sandboxing proposals would mean that when I import a library, I can globally restrict its permissions and its dependencies' permissions in something like 3 lines of code -- the whole thing is completely under my control. The alternative is I spend hours trying to figure out if it's safe to import. How is that better?
But I don't use dependencies like that. I'm mostly just importing useful functions from a library. Having to sandbox that function away from the rest of my code is not going to work. I'll end up copy/pasting the code into my project to avoid that.
Sandboxing might be something like, "I'm importing a function, and I'm going to define a scope, and within that scope, it will have access to these methods, and nothing else." Imagine the following pseudo-code in a fictional, statically typed, rigid langauge.
import std from 'std';
import disk from 'io';
import request from 'http';
//This dependency (and its sub-dependencies) can
//only call methods in the std library, nothing else.
//I can call special_sort anywhere I want and I *know*
//it can't make network requests or access the disk.
//All it can do is call a few core std libraries.
import (std){ special_sort } from 'shady_special_sort';
function save (data) {
disk.write('output.log', data);
}
function safe_save (data) {
if (!valid(data)) { return false; }
save(data);
}
function main () {
//An on-the-fly sandbox -- access to safe_save and request.
(request, safe_save){
save('my_malware_payload'); //compile-time error
disk.write('output.log', 'my_malware_payload'); //compile-time error
safe_save('my_malware_payload'); //allowed
}
}
The difference between this and pure static analysis is that static analysis isn't something that's built into the language, and static analysis tries to guess intent. Static analysis says, "that looks shifty, let's alert someone." An language-level sandbox says, "I don't care about the intent, you have access to X and that's it."
Even in a dynamic language like JS, when people talk about stuff like the Realms proposal[0][1], they're talking about a system that's a lot closer to the above than they are about creating standalone services that would live in their own processes or threads.
This kind of style of thinking about security lends itself particularly well to functional languages and functional coding styles, but there's no reason it can't also work with more traditional class-based approaches as well -- you just have to be more careful about what you're passing around and what has access to what objects.
class Dangerous () {
unsafe_write (data) {
//unvalidated disk access
}
}
class Safe () {
public Dangerous ref = new Dangerous();
safe_write (data) {
validate(data);
ref.unsafe_write();
}
}
function main () {
Dangerous instance = new Dangerous();
(instance){
//I've just accidentally given my sandbox
//access to `unsafe_write` because I left
//a property public.
}
}