[Snyk] Security upgrade webpack-dev-server from 4.15.1 to 5.0.0

[naiba4]

This PR was automatically created by Snyk using the credentials of a real user.

Snyk has created this PR to fix one or more vulnerable packages in the `npm` dependencies of this project.

Changes included in this PR

• Changes to the following files to upgrade the vulnerable dependencies to a fixed version:
  • packages/scripts/package.json

Vulnerabilities that will be fixed

With an upgrade:

Severity	Priority Score (*)	Issue	Breaking Change	Exploit Maturity
	141/1000 Why? Confidentiality impact: None, Integrity impact: None, Availability impact: High, Scope: Unchanged, Exploit Maturity: Proof of Concept, User Interaction (UI): None, Privileges Required (PR): None, Attack Complexity: Low, Attack Vector: Local, EPSS: 0.01055, Social Trends: No, Days since published: 74, Reachable: No, Transitive dependency: Yes, Is Malicious: No, Business Criticality: High, Provider Urgency: Medium, Package Popularity Score: 99, Impact: 5.99, Likelihood: 2.35, Score Version: V5	Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime SNYK-JS-INFLIGHT-6095116	Yes	Proof of Concept

(*) Note that the real score may have changed since the PR was raised.

Commit messages

Package name: webpack-dev-server

The new version differs by 88 commits.

• 064644a chore(release): 5.0.0
• 4e4c97f refactor: improve migration (Fix incorrect directory to load text domain WordPress/gutenberg#5040)
• b453380 chore(deps): bump (Fixed RichText placeholder whitespace. WordPress/gutenberg#5035)
• 975c719 fix: improve error handling for WebsocketServer (gutenberg_load_plugin_textdomain is looking for an incorrect directory WordPress/gutenberg#5038)
• 48f56d5 test: fix
• 6406db6 test: fix
• 555bddd test: fix
• ba0a2fc test: fix
• b087461 test: improve
• 017dd9d test: update logic
• fead975 test: update
• d0e092b chore(deps): bump puppeteer
• 1f3bbfb chore(deps): bump marked
• 309dfc0 test: skip broken test
• e1b6421 chore(deps): update webpack
• c6b947e test: update
• aaf31e2 test: update
• 3ed63d2 test: update
• 0466cf1 test: update
• f9615a4 chore(deps): bump
• 811b01b chore(deps): bump
• 7c676e2 chore: bump deps
• 26aae7e fix: clean 'close' event listeners on socket server after generating new proxy config. (Issue while loading or creating articles WordPress/gutenberg#5001)
• 5ec6a39 chore: update webpack-dev-middleware and other deps (Docs for wp.data.subscribe do not reflect changes in #5003 WordPress/gutenberg#5032)

See the full diff

Check the changes in this PR to ensure they won't cause issues with your project.

---

Note: You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized Snyk to open fix PRs.

For more information:
🧐 View latest project report

🛠 Adjust project settings

📚 Read more about Snyk's upgrade and patch logic

---

Learn how to fix vulnerabilities with free interactive lessons:

🦉 Learn about vulnerability in an interactive lesson of Snyk Learn.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
gutenberg	❌ Failed (Inspect)			Feb 12, 2024 5:59pm
gutenberg-wd9x	❌ Failed (Inspect)			Feb 12, 2024 5:59pm

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 2 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +1 -1
Percentile : 0.8%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.json : +1 -1

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[github-actions]

Warning: Type of PR label mismatch

To merge this PR, it requires exactly 1 label indicating the type of PR. Other labels are optional and not being checked here.

• Type-related labels to choose from: [Type] Automated Testing, [Type] Breaking Change, [Type] Bug, [Type] Build Tooling, [Type] Code Quality, [Type] Copy, [Type] Developer Documentation, [Type] Enhancement, [Type] Experimental, [Type] Feature, [Type] New API, [Type] Task, [Type] Technical Prototype, [Type] Performance, [Type] Project Management, [Type] Regression, [Type] Security, [Type] WP Core Ticket, Backport from WordPress Core.
• Labels found: Extra Small.

Read more about Type labels in Gutenberg. Don't worry if you don't have the required permissions to add labels; the PR reviewer should be able to help with the task.

[socket-security]

New dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

Package	New capabilities	Transitives	Size	Publisher
npm/[email protected]	Transitive: environment, eval, filesystem, shell	+63	20.1 MB	evilebottnawi, hiroppy, jhnns, ...1 more

View full report↗︎

[socket-security]

🚨 Potential security issues detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

To accept the risk, merge this PR and you will not be notified again.

Alert	Package	Note	Source
New author	npm/[email protected]	New Author: luin Previous Author: dgreensp	packages/scripts/package.json
Floating dependency	npm/@types/[email protected]	Location: Package overview	packages/scripts/package.json
Environment variable access	npm/[email protected]	Env Vars: windir Location: Package overview	packages/scripts/package.json

View full report↗︎

Next steps

What is new author?

A new npm collaborator published a version of the package for the first time. New collaborators are usually benign additions to a project, but do indicate a change to the security surface area of a package.

Scrutinize new collaborator additions to packages because they now have the ability to publish code into your dependency tree. Packages should avoid frequent or unnecessary additions or changes to publishing rights.

What are floating dependencies?

Package has a dependency with a floating version range. This can cause issues if the dependency publishes a new major version.

Packages should specify properly semver ranges to avoid version conflicts.

What is environment variable access?

Package accesses environment variables, which may be a sign of credential stuffing or data theft.

Packages should be clear about which environment variables they access, and care should be taken to ensure they only access environment variables they claim to.

Take a deeper look at the dependency

Take a moment to review the security alert above. Review the linked package source code to understand the potential risk. Ensure the package is not malicious before proceeding. If you're unsure how to proceed, reach out to your security team or ask the Socket team for help at support [AT] socket [DOT] dev.

Remove the package

If you happen to install a dependency that Socket reports as Known Malware you should immediately remove it and select a different dependency. For other alert types, you may may wish to investigate alternative packages or consider if there are other ways to mitigate the specific risk posed by the dependency.

Mark a package as acceptable risk

To ignore an alert, reply with a comment starting with @SocketSecurity ignore followed by a space separated list of ecosystem/package-name@version specifiers. e.g. @SocketSecurity ignore npm/[email protected] or ignore all packages with @SocketSecurity ignore-all

• @SocketSecurity ignore npm/[email protected]
• @SocketSecurity ignore npm/@types/[email protected]
• @SocketSecurity ignore npm/[email protected]