Ethical Hacking News
Dependabot, a popular automated dependency-scanning tool for GitHub repositories, has been criticized by Filippo Valsorda, a prominent Go library maintainer. The criticism centers on the false positive notifications caused by Dependabot's overzealous scanning of dependencies in the Go ecosystem.
Dependabot's false positive notifications led to alert fatigue in Go codebases, reducing security measures.Dependabot triggered thousands of pull requests against unaffected repositories, causing further complications.The tool generated nonsensical CVSS scores and warned of a 73% compatibility score, implying a 27% chance of breaking code.Valsorda criticized Dependabot for only checking if the dependency exists, not its usage.Some developers agree that Dependabot is too noisy or insufficient for its intended purpose.The debate highlights the need for nuanced discussions around automation tools like Dependabot and a balance between technology and human expertise.
Dependabot, a popular automated dependency-scanning tool for GitHub repositories, has been criticized by a prominent Go library maintainer, Filippo Valsorda. In a recent blog post, Valsorda lamented the fact that Dependabot's false positive notifications had caused alert fatigue, leading to reduced security measures in vulnerable codebases.
The controversy surrounding Dependabot began when Valsorda published a security fix for the cryptography packages in the Go standard library, specifically the filippo.io/edwards25519 library used for EdDSA (Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm) cryptography. As a result of this update, Dependabot triggered thousands of pull requests (PRs) against unaffected repositories, further complicating the already fragile ecosystem of dependency management.
Moreover, the automated process generated a nonsensical made-up Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) v4 score and warned developers of a 73% compatibility score, implying a 27% chance of breaking code. This, in essence, was one line of method that no one uses. The criticism is that Dependabot checks only whether the dependency exists, not whether the impacted function or code path is actually used.
Valsorda described Dependabot as both "too noisy" and "insufficient" for its intended purpose. He pointed out that a real vulnerability should be assessed for its impact; production might need to be updated, secrets rotated, users notified. The Go library maintainer also emphasized the importance of testing updated packages in sandboxed continuous integration processes before updating production code.
The criticism has been met with widespread agreement from developers, who concur that customers may not understand the nuances behind Valsorda's arguments. There is a general view that the value of Dependabot varies according to what would get put in its place. The Go ecosystem, for instance, is well-set up for dependency checking and other tools and processes are available to developers.
On the other hand, some point out that when resources are limited and there is no obvious alternative, Dependabot might be a better option than ignoring the problem it addresses. Ultimately, this highlights the need for more nuanced discussions around automation tools like Dependabot, acknowledging both their benefits and drawbacks in the context of software development.
In recent months, there have been numerous instances where automated tools like Dependabot have sparked heated debates among developers about their role in ensuring code security. Valsorda's criticism has shed light on some of these issues, sparking a broader conversation around the best practices for dependency management.
The incident underscores the complexities involved when relying solely on automated tools to manage dependencies and highlights the need for human oversight and critical thinking. It also raises questions about whether automated tools like Dependabot are doing enough to address security vulnerabilities in codebases.
As developers continue to grapple with the implications of automation in software development, Valsorda's words serve as a reminder that a combination of both technology and human expertise is required to ensure secure coding practices. The debate around Dependabot serves as a catalyst for exploring this balance, promoting more effective and responsible use of automated tools.
In conclusion, the story of Dependabot's impact on Go repositories raises concerns about the efficacy of automation in ensuring code security. Valsorda's criticisms highlight both the benefits and drawbacks of relying solely on automated tools like Dependabot, sparking a nuanced discussion around best practices for dependency management.
Related Information:
https://www.ethicalhackingnews.com/articles/The-perils-of-Dependabot-A-cautionary-tale-of-automation-gone-awry-ehn.shtml
https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2026/02/24/github_dependabot_noise_machine/
https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/24/github_dependabot_noise_machine/
https://words.filippo.io/dependabot/
Published: Tue Feb 24 11:31:51 2026 by llama3.2 3B Q4_K_M
