--- title: "Using CircleCI to Push Packages to Cloudsmith | Cloudsmith" description: "A short demo of how you can use a CircleCI pipeline and the Cloudsmith CircleCI Orb to push a package to a private Cloudsmith repository." canonical_url: "https://cloudsmith.com/blog/using-circleci-to-push-packages-to-cloudsmith" last_updated: "2021-10-20T08:21:00.000Z" --- # Using CircleCI to Push Packages to Cloudsmith | Cloudsmith [Dependency confusion](https://cloudsmith.com/blog/dependency-confusion-attacks) is a software supply chain weakness that arises from how package managers resolve dependencies across multiple sources. It does not rely on complex exploits. It relies on normal dependency resolution. If a build resolves from both private and public registries, and a public package shares the same name as an internal dependency, the public package may be selected. That is sufficient to introduce unintended code into a build. Modern dependency trees often include extensive transitive dependencies, increasing the number of automatic resolution decisions made during builds. The issue was [widely documented in 2021 ](https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60fec610)when researchers demonstrated it against more than 35 large organizations by publishing public packages that matched internal names. Since then, dependency confusion has remained a known and preventable risk in modern build systems. ## Where risk appears in practice Modern builds commonly blend: - Internal packages - Public open source dependencies - Upstream proxies - Cached artifacts If resolution rules are not explicit, package managers make decisions on your behalf. Different ecosystems provide different structural protections and different pitfalls. ### Ecosystem specific considerations #### Python PyPI operates on a flat global namespace. There are no built-in organizational scopes and no domain bound identifiers. Package names are globally unique and first come, first served. This means internal package names, for example acme utils or internal ml core, are structurally indistinguishable from public ones unless additional controls are applied. Python projects frequently configure multiple indexes. It is common to see: - Internal private mirrors - Vendor-hosted repositories such as PyTorch wheel indexes for CUDA builds - Regional mirrors - Index url combined with extra index url Python tooling such as pip, uv, and Poetry evaluates candidate versions across configured sources. If the same package name exists in more than one index, the resolver may select the highest compatible version, regardless of origin. Real-world incidents demonstrate this behavior. [In 2022, a malicious package mimicking a PyTorch dependency](https://www.reversinglabs.com/blog/pytorch-supply-chain-attack-dependency-confusion-burns-devops) was published to PyPI and installed via pip resolution during nightly builds, leading to data exfiltration before detection. Without explicit trust boundaries or source mapping, this multi index behavior introduces ambiguity. If an internal package name is exposed and a higher version appears on a public index included in resolution, the public package may be selected. Python’s flat namespace model, combined with common multi index configurations, makes careful source control particularly important. #### npm npm supports scoped packages using the @org/package format. Once registered, a scope is controlled by that organization. However, unregistered scopes remain claimable. If an organization uses scoped internal packages but has not reserved the scope publicly, an attacker could register it and publish similarly named packages, for example @org/app. A configuration mistake in development or CI could then result in the malicious package being resolved and executed, including via lifecycle hooks such as preinstall. Unscoped internal package names carry exposure similar to Python. #### Maven Maven Central uses domain-based groupId verification, providing stronger ownership guarantees when correctly configured. However, inconsistent repository usage or additional repositories can reintroduce ambiguity in resolution order if trust boundaries are not clearly defined. #### NuGet While NuGet supports ID prefix reservation to prevent public name squatting, resolution ambiguity can still arise if multiple feeds are configured. **Key safeguards include:** - ID prefix reservationReserve your organization’s package ID prefix on nuget.org to prevent public impersonation. - Package Source Mapping Use NuGet 6+ source mapping to bind specific package IDs or prefixes to a single trusted feed. - Strict nuget.config configurationClear default feeds and explicitly define approved sources to prevent unintended restores. - Signature enforcementNuGet repository signing using X.509 certificates. When signature verification is enforced in the NuGet or .NET CLI, consumers can verify that a package originated from the expected repository and has not been tampered with. #### Docker Docker Hub differs from language ecosystems because image references are typically registry qualified, making classic multi-source confusion less common. However, **related risks remain:** - Implicit Docker Hub fallback when no registry is specified - Unregistered namespace squatting - Mutable tags such as latest These are mitigated through fully qualified image references, namespace reservation, digest pinning using SHA256, and image signing. ## A layered mitigation approach Preventing dependency confusion does not require dramatic changes to developer workflows. It requires clear trust boundaries in how dependencies are resolved. In practice, this is implemented through an internal artifact repository that controls how dependencies are proxied, cached, and resolved. Key elements include: - Centralizing dependency resolution - Defining explicit upstream trust - Controlling namespace ownership - Using lockfiles and reproducible builds - Enforcing artifact signing and verification ### 1. Central artifact repository Route all builds through a central artifact repository that acts as the single source of truth for dependencies. Public packages should be proxied and cached internally rather than resolved directly from the internet. ### 2. Define upstream trust Explicitly distinguish between trusted and untrusted sources. Cloudsmith provides upstream trust controls that allow repositories to designate upstream sources accordingly and control how packages are blended during resolution. If a package exists in a trusted source, it cannot be overridden by an untrusted one. Cloudsmith’s Upstream Trust currently supports: - Python - Maven - npm Support for additional ecosystems is expanding. In addition to source trust controls, policy enforcement provides another layer of protection. [Cloudsmith’s Enterprise Policy Manager](https://cloudsmith.com/product/enterprise-policy-manager) allows organizations to define rules around what packages are permitted, including conditions based on vulnerability data, malware data, version constraints, or upstream origin. This enables teams to combine resolution boundaries with policy-based controls. ### 3. Reserve namespaces Where supported: - Use npm scopes - Reserve NuGet ID prefixes - Use domain based Maven group IDs Namespace ownership significantly reduces collision risk. ### 4. Use lockfiles Lockfiles improve determinism, traceability, and visibility into unexpected changes. They do not eliminate dependency confusion, but they reduce instability and make tampering easier to detect. ### 5. Require signing Signing adds cryptographic integrity to artifacts. Cloudsmith signs hosted packages by default. Cloudsmith supports both native and non-native signing across package formats, including native signing for [Docker, NuGet, and Swift](https://cloudsmith.com/blog/native-signing-support-in-cloudsmith-extended-to-docker-nuget-and-swift). Signature validation workflows in supported ecosystems provide an additional verification layer if substitution is attempted. Signing strengthens integrity guarantees but does not replace resolution controls. ## Conclusion Dependency confusion is not a sophisticated exploit. It is a consequence of ambiguous resolution behavior across multiple sources. Preventing it requires: - A central artifact repository serving as the single source of truth for dependencies - Explicit upstream trust boundaries - Namespace ownership - Lockfiles and reproducible builds - Artifact signing and verification Clear boundaries remove ambiguity. Removing ambiguity removes the attack path. Stop leaving your build integrity to chance. [**Book a demo**](https://cloudsmith.com/book-a-demo) today to see how Cloudsmith's enterprise-grade repository controls can remove ambiguity and harden your delivery process. **TL;DR:** LLMOps is the operational framework for managing the lifecycle of Large Language Models (LLMs). Unlike DevOps, which focuses on deterministic code, **LLMOps artifact management** must handle probabilistic assets like prompts, embeddings, and fine-tuned models. This shift requires a move from standard CI/CD to specialized **LLM pipeline management** to ensure system traceability and trust. ## What is LLMOps? **LLMOps (Large Language Model Operations)** is a specialized set of practices for automating and managing the end-to-end lifecycle of LLM-powered applications. It extends MLOps principles to address the unique requirements of generative AI, specifically focusing on **LLM lifecycle management**, prompt engineering, and vector-based data flows. While DevOps focuses on application code and MLOps on traditional machine learning models, **LLMOps** handles the massive complexity of: - **Foundation and fine-tuned models:** Managing base models and their task-specific variants. - **Prompt artifacts:** Versioning the system instructions that dictate model behavior. - **Embeddings and vector indexes:** Curating the "knowledge" used in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. - **Dynamic inference behavior:** Monitoring outputs that change even when input code remains the same. In essence, LLMOps is about operationalizing AI rather than just software binaries. ## LLMOps vs DevOps: Why the difference matters The debate of **LLMOps vs DevOps** isn't about choosing one over the other; it’s about understanding where **DevOps tooling limitations for AI** begin. DevOps is built for deterministic systems; if you deploy the same code, you get the same result. LLM pipelines are probabilistic, meaning the same "code" (prompt) can yield different outputs. ```json { "_key": "5a4b45476f69", "_type": "tableBlock", "caption": "LLMOps vs DevOps", "firstRowIsHeader": true, "markDefs": null, "table": { "rows": [ { "_key": "d673a428-3c6a-49c3-87fa-b7dfdff2ec98", "_type": "tableRow", "cells": [ "Category", "DevOps", "LLMOps" ] }, { "_key": "453e4f7a-37ed-4c9c-8bd9-1610932f52de", "_type": "tableRow", "cells": [ "Primary focus", "Application code and services", "Large language models and AI systems" ] }, { "_key": "8bef99c7-76e1-4dc0-81f3-8f96bc8be683", "_type": "tableRow", "cells": [ "Pipeline type", "Linear CI/CD pipelines", "LLM pipelines (training, fine-tuning, evaluation)" ] }, { "_key": "30efc20f-d752-4f94-b718-b4bac0e30ace", "_type": "tableRow", "cells": [ "Artifact types", "Software artifacts (containers, binaries)", "AI artifacts (models, prompts, embeddings)" ] }, { "_key": "30be9c5f-912a-4b10-b7ba-8a3d3b594016", "_type": "tableRow", "cells": [ "Behavior", "Deterministic and reproducible", "Probabilistic and context-dependent" ] }, { "_key": "17362cff-191b-4f7a-9c4a-3c2b2a8be477", "_type": "tableRow", "cells": [ "Change frequency", "Deliberate versioning", "Rapid iteration of prompts and datasets" ] }, { "_key": "b1fc02b1-3d99-4d38-aa79-6a8215086984", "_type": "tableRow", "cells": [ "Traceability", "Moderate (log-based)", "Critical (lineage-based for compliance)" ] } ] } } ``` The core takeaway is that the shift from **DevOps artifact management** to **AI artifact management** involves handling much larger, more volatile assets that directly influence the "logic" of the application. ## Why artifact management matters in LLMOps In a traditional app, an artifact is just a compiled file. In AI, **artifacts are the system.** Without robust **artifact management for LLMs**, teams face a "black box" problem where they cannot explain why a model suddenly began hallucinating or failing. **Effective AI artifact management solves for:** - **Reproducibility:** Re-creating a specific model state using exact dataset snapshots. - **Auditability:** Tracking the lineage of a prompt to meet emerging AI regulations. - **Rollback safety:** Quickly reverting to a previous "known good" version of a prompt or embedding index. - **Cost efficiency:** Preventing redundant training by reusing existing **model artifacts**. ## What artifacts do LLM pipelines produce? Modern **LLM pipeline management** generates a diverse array of non-code assets across the **AI model lifecycle**. Understanding these is key to moving beyond simple script-based deployments. #### Common LLM artifacts: - **Model artifacts:** These include base foundation models (like Llama 3 or GPT-4), fine-tuned adapters (LoRA/QLoRA), and quantized versions for edge deployment. - **Dataset versioning:** Snapshots of training data, evaluation sets (Golden Sets), and synthetic data used for testing. - **Prompt artifacts:** Versioned system prompts, few-shot examples, and complex prompt chains that function as the "new source code." - **Embeddings management:** Vector database snapshots and the specific embedding models (e.g., Ada, BERT) used to generate them. - **Inference artifacts:** Production logs, "LLM-as-a-judge" evaluation scores, and human-in-the-loop feedback. ## MLOps vs LLMOps: Where traditional approaches fall short Many teams assume their existing MLOps stacks can handle LLMs. However, **MLOps vs LLMOps** highlights a critical gap: **prompt versioning.** Traditional MLOps tools aren't built to treat a 50-word text string (a prompt) as a deployment-critical artifact. Furthermore, the **inference artifacts** in LLMOps are much richer, requiring semantic monitoring rather than just simple accuracy metrics. #### Feature store vs Artifact repository A common point of confusion is the choice between a **feature store vs artifact repository**: - **Feature stores** are for structured data used in tabular ML. - **Artifact repositories** (like weights and biases or MLflow) are the "System of Record" for the unstructured models and prompts that define an LLM app. ## Challenges and best practices for LLMOps Managing these assets comes with significant **challenges of artifact management in LLMOps**, including massive file sizes and the high velocity of prompt changes. #### LLMOps best practices: - **Treat prompts as code:** Store prompts in version-controlled repositories, not hardcoded in your app. - **Centralize your artifact registry:** Use a single source of truth for all models and embeddings to avoid "shadow AI" across teams. - **Automate lineage tracking:** Ensure every inference result is traceable back to the specific model version, prompt, and dataset used. - **Implement evaluation gates:** In your **LLM workflows**, never promote an artifact to production without passing an automated evaluation suite. ## FAQ: Frequently asked questions on LLMOps - ### How is LLMOps different from DevOps? LLMOps manages probabilistic AI assets like models and prompts, while DevOps manages deterministic code and binaries. LLMOps requires specialized pipelines for evaluation and fine-tuning that don't exist in traditional CI/CD. - ### Why does artifact management matter in LLMOps? It ensures that every AI output is traceable and reproducible. Without it, you cannot debug hallucinations, comply with AI audits, or reliably roll back failed updates. - ### What are the most important LLMOps workflows? Key workflows include data ingestion for RAG, automated prompt evaluation, model fine-tuning, and continuous monitoring of inference quality. ## Final thoughts The future of software is no longer just about code; it’s about **artifacts, intelligence, and trust.** As LLMs move from experiments to core infrastructure, the transition from DevOps to LLMOps is inevitable. Teams that master **artifact management for LLMs** today will be the ones building the most reliable, scalable, and auditable AI systems of tomorrow. To manage LLMOps at enterprise scale, use Cloudsmith as your single source of truth. Discover how by [booking your free demo](https://cloudsmith.com/book-a-demo) today. **Cloud migration** is rarely just an infrastructure move. For most DevOps and platform teams in 2026, it’s a once-in-a-decade opportunity to rethink tooling, eliminate legacy bottlenecks, and modernize the [**software supply chain**](https://cloudsmith.com/product/software-supply-chain-security) end-to-end. One of the most overlooked, but highest-impact, areas to revisit during this transition is **artifact management**. As organizations shift workloads and security controls into the cloud, the limitations of [**legacy artifact repositories**](https://cloudsmith.com/blog/the-true-cost-of-legacy-artifact-management) quickly become visible. What once worked in on-premise environments often creates friction, risk, and massive operational overhead in a cloud-native world. This is why **cloud migration** isn’t just a "lift-and-shift" event. It’s the ideal moment to reassess how you store, secure, and distribute artifacts across modern **cloud migration DevOps** workflows. ## Why legacy artifact repositories struggle during cloud migration Traditional, self-hosted repositories were designed for static infrastructure and perimeter-based security. Cloud environments invert those assumptions. During migration, teams commonly encounter: - **Scaling constraints:** Legacy tools often require manual server provisioning or expensive over-capacity planning. - **Operational toil:** Managing patches, database tuning, and storage maintenance for your own repository steals focus from your core product. - **Performance bottlenecks:** When global teams depend on a single on-premise instance, latency sabotages developer velocity. Keeping a legacy repository while modernizing everything else often results in a "partially modern" stack with legacy risk still embedded in your delivery pipeline. ## Cloud migration exposes hidden software supply chain risk Modern cloud adoption increases velocity, but speed without control amplifies risk across the **software supply chain**. Common exposure points include: - **Unverified third-party dependencies:** Cloud-scale builds pull in thousands of external packages that need immediate scanning. - **Inconsistent provenance:** Difficulty tracking exactly "who built what and where" across fragmented environments. - **Limited policy enforcement:** Brittle legacy controls that can't handle the dynamic nature of cloud-native deployments. Re-evaluating artifact management during migration allows teams to embed **zero-trust** governance exactly when redesigning their pipelines. ## The modernization opportunity: Fully managed artifact repositories Cloud migration creates the perfect window to replace self-hosted infrastructure with a fully managed** artifact repository** built for elasticity and global distribution. Modern platforms like **Cloudsmith** deliver: - **Infinite scalability:** No more storage planning or maintenance; the platform automatically scales with your builds. - **Edge performance:** A built-in Package Delivery Network (PDN) delivers artifacts worldwide to reduce latency. - **Integrated security:** Features like automated vulnerability scanning and signature verification are baked in, not bolted on. Instead of recreating legacy architecture in the cloud, organizations can move directly to a fully managed model aligned with cloud‑native principles. This shift transforms artifact management from a maintenance task into a strategic layer of the delivery platform. ## When to move: Aligning your migration strategy Teams often postpone modernization because migration feels complex. However, delaying the decision typically leads to "double migration" work, migrating the legacy tool today and replacing it tomorrow. **Aligning modernization with your cloud move avoids:** 1. **Re-architecting pipelines twice:** Design your CI/CD for your final destination, not a temporary stop. 2. **Moving massive stores twice:** Cloud-native migration scripts (like the Cloudsmith CLI) handle the transfer of binaries and metadata once. 3. **Carrying legacy debt:** Ensure your new cloud environment launches with a clean, high-performance foundation from day one. ## Signs your artifact management is holding you back Before moving to the cloud, audit your current state. If these "silent killers" sound familiar, a lift-and-shift solution will only migrate your technical debt: - **Manual maintenance toil:** Your team spends hours every month on repository upgrades, patching, and storage "garbage collection". - **The "slow download" tax:** Global developers or remote build agents face high latency because your on-premise repository lacks a global distribution network. - **Compliance blind spots:** You struggle to provide a complete "bill of materials" (SBOM) or audit trail for a security incident. - **Brittle CI/CD scripts:** Your pipelines rely on custom, "home-grown" scripts to move packages between environments because your tool doesn't support native promotion workflows. ## The strategic ROI: What actually changes? Modernizing your **artifact repository** during a cloud move isn't just a technical swap; it delivers measurable business impact: - **Developer velocity:** By eliminating manual bottlenecks and enabling faster access to dependencies, teams often see **43% faster release cycles**. - **Zero-trust security:** Centralized policy enforcement and automated vulnerability scanning move security from a "final check" to an integrated part of the build. - **Operational efficiency:** Moving to a fully managed** artifact repository** removes the "toil" of server management, allowing your DevOps engineers to focus on product innovation rather than infra-maintenance. - **Total cost of ownership (TCO):** You trade hidden infrastructure costs and administrative salaries for a predictable, transparent, fully managed model. ## Evaluating alternatives: Beyond JFrog and Nexus Many organizations begin cloud migration using legacy tools like **JFrog Artifactory** or **Sonatype Nexus**, only to find they were built for a different era of infrastructure. Modern cloud-native platforms eliminate the need to manage repository infrastructure while delivering stronger governance and global performance. As a result, more teams are looking for [**JFrog alternatives**](https://cloudsmith.com/switch/jfrog-artifactory) and [**Nexus alternatives**](https://cloudsmith.com/switch/sonatype-nexus) that offer a fully managed, "Zero-Ops" experience. For teams ready to [**migrate, Cloudsmith**](https://docs.cloudsmith.com/migrating-to-cloudsmith?_gl=1*1tuvjc8*_gcl_au*MjA0MTMxOTg3MC4xNzYzMzg3ODg3*_ga*NDcwNDc1ODMuMTcyMzAyNjg2MQ..*_ga_6KCWZ6W3Y9*czE3NzAyOTA3NDEkbzE1MiRnMSR0MTc3MDI5MTAwMiRqNDEkbDAkaDA.*_ga_H5NBQJ0NGM*czE3NzAyOTA3NDEkbzMxMiRnMSR0MTc3MDI5MTAwMiRqNDAkbDAkaDkzNTk0MDIyMw..) streamlines the process to minimize disruption and accelerate value realization. ## Why global leaders migrate artifact management to Cloudsmith As teams evaluate **alternatives to JFrog and Nexus**, they increasingly move to **Cloudsmith**, designed specifically for modern DevOps and secure software delivery for the security landscape of 2026 and beyond. **The Cloudsmith advantage:** - **Zero-ops architecture:** A true cloud-native, fully managed experience with no databases to manage and no servers to patch. - **Built-in package delivery network (PDN):** Hundreds of nodes deliver artifacts from the edge, ensuring your global build agents always have high-speed access. - **Universal format support:** One single source of truth for Docker, npm, Maven, Python, and 30+ other formats. - **Supply chain resilience:** Automated provenance tracking and signature verification help keep you compliant with key security standards and ensure that what you ship is exactly what you built. ## Conclusion: Don’t just move to the cloud – modernize what matters Cloud migration is a rare opportunity to fix the "foundation" of your house before you move in the furniture. By re-evaluating your **artifact management** now, you ensure your cloud-native future is fast, secure, and, most importantly, manageable. The most successful cloud migrations don’t just replicate the past. They modernize the platform that powers everything built next. **Planning a cloud migration?** [Book a demo](https://cloudsmith.com/book-a-migration-consultation) with our experts to simplify the process. ## Frequently asked questions - ### What is artifact management in DevOps? It is the practice of storing, securing, and distributing build outputs, such as Docker images or Maven packages, throughout the development lifecycle. It ensures your builds are reproducible and secure. - ### Why reconsider artifact repositories during cloud migration? Updating your repository during a move avoids duplicate work and ensures that a legacy on-premises artifact manager doesn’t constrain your new cloud infrastructure. - ### What are the risks of keeping a self-hosted repository in the cloud? [Self-hosting](https://cloudsmith.com/blog/cloud-native-vs-on-premise-artifact-management-a-complete-overview) in the cloud still requires manual patching and scaling. This increases costs and creates "visibility gaps" that can lead to security breaches. - ### How does a fully managed artifact repository improve security? Fully managed platforms provide centralized governance, immutable storage, and automated compliance auditing, all of which are critical to a secure **software supply chain**. For years, the bottleneck in software was “how fast can we write code?” Today, Generative AI shifts that bottleneck to **“how fast can we secure it”**. For years, the bottleneck in software was “how fast can we write code?” Today, Generative AI shifts that bottleneck to “[how fast can we secure it](https://cloudsmith.medium.com/is-ai-quietly-making-your-software-supply-chain-less-secure-e1364de33f9a)?” As organizations move from experimentation to production-grade AI, they are discovering that traditional DevOps tooling wasn’t built for a non-deterministic world. For example, static software composition analysis (SCA) scanners that assume deterministic dependency graphs or CI policy gates that validate known build artifacts. When a model generates code rather than a human, the software supply chain changes overnight. Our guide, **Securing non-deterministic systems: A practical guide for AI artifacts and LLMOps**, explores three emerging security frontiers that every organization adopting AI must address: ## 1. AI-generated code introduces supply-chain hallucinations LLMs generate dependencies probabilistically, not deterministically. This creates the emerging **slopsquatting** attack vector, where attackers register hallucinated package names suggested by AI tools and weaponize them with malicious payloads.Without validation and artifact governance, a single copied command can silently compromise an enterprise environment. ## 2. AI models behave like executable software, not passive data Modern model formats can execute arbitrary code during deserialization, most notably through Python pickle-based loading.This **logic-weight entanglement** means downloading an unverified model from public registries such as Hugging Face or Ollama can result in full system compromise.Secure AI development requires scanning, signing, and favoring restricted formats like **safetensors**, alongside enforcing trusted provenance for every model artifact. ## 3. AI productivity and orchestration layers expand the attack surface Frameworks that connect models to enterprise data and automate workflows introduce a new class of high-impact vulnerabilities.Recent RCE exploits in orchestration tools demonstrate that **LLMOps infrastructure itself is now part of the software supply chain**, and must be sandboxed, authenticated, and governed like any production system. ### Ready to harden your AI supply chain? Our full guide provides a strategic roadmap for navigating the shift from DevOps to LLMOps, deconstructing threats in frameworks like Langflow, and building a “sandbox-by-default” development lifecycle. **[Download the full guide: [Securing non-deterministic systems](https://cloudsmith.com/campaigns/securing-non-deterministic-systems-a-practical-guide-for-ai-artifacts-and-llmops)]** **Catch up on the series:** - [_Why Repository Structure Matters?_](https://cloudsmith.com/blog/why-repository-structure-matters) - [_The Hybrid Repository Structure: Balancing Control and Flexibility_](https://cloudsmith.com/blog/the-hybrid-repository-structure-balancing-control-and-flexibility) And now, let’s dive into part three: How **access control and permissions** keep your multi-format repositories secure, consistent, and developer-friendly. In the first two blogs of this series, we explored why repository structure matters and how Cloudsmith’s Hybrid Repository Structure balances control with flexibility. While we touched on policies and permissions, we didn’t dive into the _real_ mechanics of how access control ensures artifact security, traceability, and consistency, especially in **multi-format repositories**, where different packages, languages, and tooling coexist in a single place. While multi-format repositories allow for more flexibility in how your repositories are set up, they can introduce a new way of thinking about how and when different artifacts can be accessed and by whom. This blog breaks down how Cloudsmith provides fine-grained, flexible, and secure controls for teams of any size. ## User roles in Cloudsmith Cloudsmith provides the following user roles: - Owner - Manager - Member - Collaborator These roles help limit access based on organizational need and provide the foundation for more granular permissions. ## Privileges in Cloudsmith - Administrator - Read - Write You can explore the full breakdown of Cloudsmith roles, permissions, and privileges in our documentation. You can read more about user roles, permissions, and privileges in Cloudsmith [here](https://help.cloudsmith.io/docs/access-controls). ## Global privileges in Cloudsmith Every Cloudsmith customer is given the opportunity to set default global privileges. These global default privileges are set for the “Member” user role in Cloudsmith, which is often suited best for individual developers. Within a customer’s global workspace privileges, organizations can choose to grant members the ability to create new teams, invite new users, and even create new repositories. Organization owners can also grant “blanket” repository privileges to all users within Cloudsmith.  While we offer the flexibility for organizations to shift responsibility and access to the developer, we often see our enterprise customers lean away from blanket permissions and access toward more fine-grained permissions. As an example, we have a semiconductor manufacturing customer that has disabled default workspace global privileges so that only Organisation owners are the only users who can invite new users, create new teams, invite 3rd-party collaborators, and create new repositories.  In addition, this customer has access control, and privileges are scoped down to specific teams. Default global repository privileges are disabled so that they can choose exactly which team(s) should have access to repository(s). Even Cloudsmith service accounts are grouped together within a team for ease of tracking permissions and access when it comes to build and deployment times.  ## Repository privileges in Cloudsmith If we zoom in once and look at the repository level in Cloudsmith, we can assign a default privilege for organization members for accessing packages within the repository, and we can assign specific privileges for specific teams, users, or service accounts. This is the stage where you’ll have to consider what packages the repository is storing and if you want developers and service accounts to have default admin, read, or write permissions to the repository. Continuing to use my customer example, they have chosen to set default read permissions for all repositories; however, specific service accounts have write and [admin permissions](https://help.cloudsmith.io/docs/manage-a-repository) to different repositories. You may be okay with your developers downloading artifacts to their local machine for testing or even service accounts requesting stored artifacts tied to staging and production environments. On the other hand, there are customers that may not want their developers having the ability to write to every repository and would most likely want specific service accounts tied to their CI/CD pipelines to only have write permissions. While this is generally best practice, there are certainly exceptions to this rule, as we also have platform teams that choose to grant specific developer teams write access to specific artifact repositories. ## Fine-grained repository controls On top of the permission and access control settings we’ve discussed, Cloudsmith goes even further to ensure that, through various additional settings, platform teams can decide exactly what their developers need and don’t need to be reconfigured within a repository. Platform teams are able to grant or deny developer permissions, such as: - Copying Packages From One Repository to Another - Moving Packages From One Repository to Another - Deleting Packages - Scanning Packages - Replacing Packages - Managing, Using, Or Viewing Entitlement Tokens If you thought that wasn’t enough, Cloudsmith takes it a step further by scoping down permissions to the individual developer’s generated packages. So while platform teams can restrict tampering of artifacts generated by other developers or systems, they can also decide if they would like to allow developers the ability to scan, move, copy, delete, or resync their own packages. Most of the enterprise customers I work with allow developers to do as they please with their own packages to avoid a developer mutiny! In either case, these user actions are catalogued in our [Audit Logs](https://docs.cloudsmith.com/logs-and-observability/audit-logs) for enhanced observability across your Cloudsmith environment. ## Entitlement tokens For instances where our customers want to be very particular about what, how, and when users can access specific packages, Cloudsmith offers [Entitlement Tokens](https://help.cloudsmith.io/docs/entitlements). These scoped tokens are read-access only, so there is never a risk of a user performing a write action against the repository they have limited access to. Customers are able to restrict access by creating a precise search query to narrow down specific packages within a repository, should they choose not to provide visibility into all the packages within the repository. On top of visibility restrictions, customers can also add token usage restrictions to avoid prolonged access and usage of the token. Parameters include: - Token Validity & Expiry Dates - Maximum Downloads - Maximum Clients/IPs - Maximum Download Bandwidth Typically, we see our customers use entitlements for 3rd party software distribution or even for systems that don’t require logins to Cloudsmith. ## Geo/IP Restrictions For our security-conscious customers, Cloudsmith also offers the ability to configure [geo-based restrictions](https://help.cloudsmith.io/docs/geoip-restriction) based on country, with an easy-to-use preconfigured list of countries to choose from. Choose to deny or allow access from specific countries. Although keep in mind that theoretically, no unauthenticated user should have access to your Cloudsmith workspace in general. This restriction applies more towards open-source repositories that you may be hosting in Cloudsmith, but it’s always a good idea to practice defence-in-depth! If geo-based restrictions are too broad, you can scope down to IP-based restrictions to either allow or deny client access based on IP address. This added protection ensures that requests coming from clients with an unapproved IP address do not have access to your repositories.  ## We’re here to help With all of these configuration options, it can be tricky to decide how you want to best enable your developers while balancing security and flexibility. Not to worry—the Cloudsmith Customer Success team is here to help you in your decisions throughout the onboarding process. We’ve walked through these decisions with many customers and have outlined decision impacts for you so you’re not left wondering “what if”. Learn more about Cloudsmith [here](https://cloudsmith.com/) to get started with us. See you on the other side!  ## FAQs (Frequently asked questions) ### 1. What is access control in a multi-format repository? Access control defines who can read, write, or administer artifacts across different package formats stored in the same repository. It ensures secure, consistent governance across diverse tooling. ### 2. How do permissions work in Cloudsmith for multi-format repositories? Cloudsmith supports global, repository-level, team-based, and user-specific permissions, allowing organizations to tailor access to packages, teams, service accounts, and even individual artifact actions. ### 3. Why is fine-grained access control important in software supply chain security? Fine-grained controls reduce the blast radius of errors, prevent unauthorized writes, and help organizations enforce policies required by modern software supply chain frameworks like SLSA and SSDF. ### 4. What are entitlement tokens used for in Cloudsmith? Entitlement tokens provide scoped, read-only access to specific artifacts without requiring user accounts, making them ideal for external distribution, automation, or least-privilege workflows. ### 5. Can developers manage their own packages in Cloudsmith? Yes. Cloudsmith allows permissions that let developers manage only the packages they personally created—without putting others’ artifacts at risk. ### 6. How does Cloudsmith support secure CI/CD pipeline access? Service accounts can be granted precisely the permissions needed for pipeline operations (like write or admin) while keeping developers and collaborators restricted to read-only or scoped access. ### 7. What’s the difference between global and repository-level privileges? Global privileges affect the entire workspace, while repository-level privileges enable granular control over specific teams, users, or service accounts interacting with a particular repository. In a world where software ships in seconds, teams are still chained to legacy systems built for a different era. What once passed as “good enough” for storing and distributing builds has become a drain on productivity - adding risk, slowing delivery, and quietly inflating costs year after year. In this post, we’ll break down the hidden cost of legacy artifact repositories, discuss the importance of modernizing through cloud-native artifact management, and demonstrate how you can leave the old infrastructure that has been slowing your software supply chain. ## What is legacy artifact management? Legacy artifact management involves older on-premise artifact repositories or in-house custom systems. These tools were designed in another era, when teams used monolithic applications and updates were done once a year or even less. The modern reality is very different. Cloud-native development, continuous CI/CD pipelines, and distributed engineering teams need a modern artifact management approach that delivers scalability, uptime, and built-in security. This is where legacy artifact repositories fall behind. Many teams assume that on-prem systems are “more secure” because they’re isolated, but isolation no longer protects against today’s threats. Most attacks now originate upstream, through open-source dependencies that already contain vulnerabilities, malicious code injections, or compromised packages.  With the volume and speed of issues emerging in the open-source ecosystem, an isolated, self-hosted repository cannot keep pace without continuous scanning, real-time visibility, and automated updates. Without these protections, legacy artifact management becomes a blind spot in the software supply chain - quietly storing and distributing unverified or unsafe artifacts. ## The hidden costs of legacy or on-premise artifact repositories Legacy systems can feel safer to stick with - they’re already in place and “working.” But maintaining the status quo often hides bigger costs: outdated infrastructure, ongoing maintenance, and mounting security risks from unpatched or unsupported components. ### 1. Complexity and maintenance overhead Legacy repositories need to be manually patched, updated, backed up, and scaled. Teams spend valuable engineering time on server management instead of innovation. Each new project or environment increases the complexity of configuration and slows down the development. ### 2. Unrecognized infrastructure costs Hosting artifact repositories either in on-prem or in self-managed cloud VMs requires continued expenditure on storage, bandwidth, and compute. The costs increase unintentionally as the size and volume of artifacts grows (especially large Docker images or build artifacts). Beyond infrastructure, many older systems also require costly vendor support contracts for upgrades, patches, and troubleshooting. These fees often increase over time and are non-negotiable. ### 3. Security and compliance risks Legacy systems often lack built-in scanning, access control, or software bill of materials (SBOM) capabilities. Lacking transparency in dependencies leaves teams exposed to vulnerabilities and unmet compliance requirements - something that enterprises will not be able to afford in 2025 and beyond's regulatory environment. ### 4. Scalability limitations As repositories grow, performance bottlenecks emerge - developers face slower downloads, failed builds, and pipeline downtime, all of which directly slow release velocity and drain productivity. ## Why cloud-native artifact management is a change worth making Legacy tools may have provided the groundwork for early DevOps, but they cannot keep up with the current software landscape. Modern organizations need next-generation artifact management - cloud-native solutions designed for speed, security, scalability, and seamless integration with cloud-native CI/CD pipelines. A [cloud-native artifact management](https://cloudsmith.com/product/cloud-native-artifact-management) platform is more than just a storage location for packages - it’s a critical pillar of your software supply chain security. It guarantees that every artifact, from source to deployment, is verified, traceable, and instantly accessible, regardless of where your teams are working. These capabilities are exactly why more organizations are moving to modern, cloud-native platforms that combine speed, security, and scalability to support today’s software delivery demands - reasons we explore in detail below. ### 1. No maintenance and always up to date With legacy artifact repositories, engineering teams spend hours managing servers, applying patches, and juggling storage. A truly [cloud-native artifact management platform](https://cloudsmith.com/blog/artifact-management-a-complete-guide) is different from simply hosting a repository in the cloud—it’s built to auto-scale, self-update, and deliver continuous security without manual intervention. There’s no server downtime, no upgrade windows to schedule, and no need to plan for storage expansion - everything is handled seamlessly in the background. ### 2. Scalability without complexity Self-hosted systems cannot keep pace with the growth in artifact volume size. A cloud-native artifact management platform dynamically boosts its capacity to manage millions of artifacts across multiple teams, regions, and projects, [without compromising performance](https://cloudsmith.com/product/global-software-distribution). Using elastic storage and edge caching CDNs, developers are always guaranteed a [quick download and high uptime](https://cloudsmith.com/blog/scaling-for-extreme-performance). ### 3. Built-in security and compliance from the ground up In today’s world, threats move faster than ever. With malicious packages and supply chain attacks on the rise, cloud-native artifact repositories integrate vulnerability scanning, access controls, and SBOMs (Software Bill of Materials) directly into your pipelines. This ensures that all artifacts maintained and shared are validated, trackable, and consistent with the industry regulations such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, and FedRAMP. No extra patching or standalone security tools - modern artifact management [integrates security](https://cloudsmith.com/product/software-supply-chain-security) into every phase of your software supply chain. ### 4. Performance and speed that empower developers A truly cloud-native artifact repository ensures artifacts are forwarded to the closest edge location, which significantly decreases both the time spent building and deploying, which has a direct impact on increasing developer productivity and CI/CD throughput. Engineers can focus on building features rather than waiting on downloads or troubleshooting failed builds, making software delivery faster, more reliable, and predictable. ### 5. Seamless integration with the modern DevOps toolchain Legacy repositories often require plugins or manual scripting to integrate with CI/CD tools. Cloud-native artifact management platforms offer native integrations with [GitHub Actions](https://cloudsmith.com/product/integrations/github-actions), [GitLab CI](https://cloudsmith.com/product/integrations/gitlab-cicd), [Jenkins](https://cloudsmith.com/product/integrations/jenkins), [CircleCI](https://cloudsmith.com/product/integrations/circle-ci), and more - all via robust APIs. This ensures that artifacts flow seamlessly through your CI/CD pipelines, maintaining consistency, traceability, and reliability from development all the way to production. ### 6. Single visibility and governance between teams In large organizations, artifacts are often scattered across multiple repositories and sometimes duplicated, making governance and visibility a constant challenge. A cloud-native artifact management system provides a centralized, single platform for managing visibility, audit, and access. Administrators can also manage published, promoted, or consumed artifacts - to ensure compliance and reduce the risk of unauthorized access or obsolete dependencies. ### 7. Predictable, transparent costs In contrast to self-managed solutions that have unpredictable infrastructure charges, cloud-native artifact management follows a usage-based pricing scheme, which is predictable. You pay for what you use. You do not expect to incur costs for hardware, maintenance, or downtime. This will ultimately lead to a reduced total cost of ownership (TCO) and a better understanding of the ROI of engineering time. Moving legacy artifact management to a new, modern, cloud-native repository is not just a technical choice but a strategic one that enhances both the security, performance, and user experience of developing a product or service, as well as reduces costs in the long run. Migrating from legacy artifact management to a modern, cloud-native repository improves security, performance, and the overall developer experience while helping reduce long-term operational costs. By centralizing control, simplifying scalability, and strengthening the software supply chain, teams can focus on building software more efficiently and securely. ## How to upgrade from escape legacy artifact management (step-by-step) The idea of moving away from on-premise or legacy artifact systems to a modern, cloud-native solution can be overwhelming, but with the correct plan, it is achievable. 1. **Audit your existing repositories – **Review what you store (packages, containers, Helm charts, etc.) and where. 2. **Analyze utilization and access patterns -** Learn which teams, pipelines, and tools rely on which repositories. 3. **Select a modern artifact management platform – **Seek capabilities such as universal format support, security scanning, policy management, global availability, and automation through integrations. 4. **Plan your migration strategy – **Migrate critical projects first, automate uploads, and validate integrations. 5. **Decommission legacy infrastructure – **Once migration and validation are complete, phase out outdated systems to eliminate ongoing maintenance, reduce operational overhead, and free up resources for modern, cloud-native artifact management. 🔥**Top tip: **Cloudsmith’s [Migration](https://cloudsmith.com/campaigns/cloudsmith-migration-guide) Toolkit, combined with expert support, makes the transition seamless - preserving your history and metadata while enabling improved security and scalable infrastructure. ## The real ROI of leaving legacy, on-premise artifact management behind Teams that modernize and migrate to cloud-native artifact management see measurable returns: - Reduce infrastructure expenses by up to 60%. - Faster build and deployment times across CI/CD pipelines. - Improved developer satisfaction through simplified workflows. - Better compliance posture with automated vulnerability management. Time spent maintaining a legacy repository directly impacts productivity and costs. Migrating to a modern, cloud-native artifact repository preserves operational efficiency and supports long-term software delivery improvements. ## How Cloudsmith makes modern artifact management effortless All of these challenges, including scalability, security, automation, and visibility, can be solved with a truly cloud-native approach to artifact management. And if you are planning a migration to the cloud, it is worth doing it right rather than sticking with your existing provider simply because it feels easier. A migration is already a major change, and it is the perfect opportunity to elevate your entire artifact management program. Cloudsmith was built from the ground up as a fully cloud-native platform that helps teams break free from the limits of traditional repositories, delivering seamless automation, built-in security, and scalable reliability in a single unified system. Here’s how Cloudsmith enables that transition seamlessly: - **Fully managed, always available:** Cloudsmith is truly cloud-native which means hosting, scaling, and security are built in. Teams can focus on development without worrying about infrastructure maintenance and downtime. - **Universal support for all formats:** Whether you manage containers, packages, Helm charts, or custom binaries - with multi-format repositories, Cloudsmith provides one centralized platform for all your artifacts. - **Unified security and compliance:** Each artifact is scanned, signed, and tracked. Cloudsmith also has vulnerability scanning, dependency metadata, and SBOM generation built-in to ensure end-to-end security for your software supply chain. - **Global performance and distribution:** Artifacts are served over Cloudsmith’s global edge network and minimizing latency and providing fast and reliable builds across the globe. - **Seamless CI/CD integration:** Cloudsmith integrates seamlessly with the latest DevOps platforms: GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, and Jenkins - enabling teams to automate artifact workflows, reduce manual errors, and accelerate software delivery. A modern, cloud-native artifact repository like Cloudsmith simplifies operations, strengthens security, and accelerates software delivery - without the hidden costs or complexity of legacy systems. ## Summary: don’t let legacy on-premise artifact management hold you back Legacy artifact management is not only dated - it’s also costly, risky, and non-sustainable. The emerging generation of cloud-native artifact management platforms, such as Cloudsmith, transcends complexity with confidence, enabling teams to achieve the visibility and velocity required to build securely at scale. The faster you retire legacy systems, the sooner your organization can build securely, on a truly modern, cloud-native platform. ## Frequently asked questions (FAQs) #### 1. What is legacy artifact management, and why is it a problem? The management of legacy artifacts encompasses older systems (typically [on-premise artifact management](https://cloudsmith.com/blog/cloud-native-vs-on-premise-artifact-management-a-complete-overview)) used to store and distribute software packages. Such systems do not offer the automation, scalability, and integrated security that are needed in modern DevOps, resulting in inefficiencies and increased operational costs. #### 2. What are the unknown expenses of legacy artifact repositories? Beyond licensing, teams also bear the costs of infrastructure maintenance, downtime, manual updates, and security risks. These hidden expenses can quickly add up, often exceeding the investment required for a modern, cloud-native alternative. #### 3. How do I migrate to a modern artifact repository? Begin by auditing your existing repositories, determining dependencies, and automating the migration with the help of migration tools (such as Cloudsmith’s Migration Tool). The advantage is to retain the integrity of artifacts with the purpose of avoiding manual management. #### 4. Why choose a cloud-native artifact repository over self-hosted options? Uptime, scaling, and security are automatically managed on cloud-native platforms. They are CI/CD integrated, can distribute faster worldwide, and can eliminate maintenance overhead, allowing your developers to focus on their core tasks #### 5. How does modern artifact management improve security and compliance? Modern artifact systems integrate vulnerability scanning, SBOMs generation, and access control. This will ensure artifacts are secure, traceable, and compliant – which is essential to securing your software supply chain. We are excited to announce that Cloudsmith has secured $15 million of funding in our recent Series A round. This latest round will help us continue to build best-in-class technology for today’s software engineers and their organizations by evolving cloud-native package management and providing a secure, single source of truth for all software artifacts and assets. Cloudsmith was built to tackle the complexity of managing software assets, a key challenge for any company to secure their supply chains. Especially in 2021. With the Cloudsmith platform, we enable our customers across the globe to track and control the distribution of any software asset and provide the tooling to minimize the risks of utilizing open-source software. It’s an industry-wide issue and our investors, led by Tiger Global, understand the need for a fully managed cloud-native solution that Cloudsmith provides. ## **Shaping the Future of Software Supply Chains** CI/CD and DevOps are part of modern software supply chains, but a genuinely holistic view from source to delivery is required. A solution that powers global infrastructure at scale and provides criticality of performance, observability, and isolation. A logistics-based smart CDN that offers controls and insights; a software-aware Package Distribution Network (PDN). That’s what Cloudsmith provides. As engineers ourselves, we understand that ownership of how our customers’ software artifacts, containers, and packages are pulled in, stored, and distributed is vital. It's the central pinch-point that everything should pass through, and going forwards, as supply chain attacks increase, every single opening in your supply chain is a vector for attack. Our complement of continuous packaging, which is the glue between CI and CD in the supply chain, positions packaged assets as first-class traceable entities in the supply chain's bill of materials. With support for 24+ formats, 225 PoPs, 24/7 engineer-driven support, and an ever-evolving partner ecosystem with leading tools like Buildkite, HashiCorp, Snyk, and CircleCI, our mission is to evolve the cloud-native supply chain, making it simple for organizations to secure their software delivery at scale. ## **Venture-Backed by Top Software Automation and DevOps Firms** Our Series A round is led by Tiger Global, with participation from Shasta, Sorenson, Amaranthine, Leadout Capital, and previous investors Frontline, MMC, and Techstart. Scott Johnston (CEO of Docker), Sarah Friar (CEO of Nextdoor), Yvonne Wassenaar (CEO of Puppet), Shane Curran (CEO of Evervault), Matt Klein (Lyft, creator of Envoy), Yun-Fang Juan (ex-Facebook), Cian O'Maidin (CEO of NearForm), Babak Hamadani (Primeset, ex-Twitter) and Kit Merker (Nobl9) also participated in the round, raising our total capital to $15 million. We are also incredibly lucky to have these awesome Angel investors who participated in the round that truly understand and believe in the Cloudsmith mission. Our new funds will be used to grow the Cloudsmith team, deliver on our product roadmap, and continue to expand into international markets. ## **Thank You to our Community** To every Cloudsmither, partner, customer, and advisor of Cloudsmith, thank you for your continued support. We honestly couldn’t have done this without each and every one of you. Thank you for choosing us and believing in our product and our mission. We may be five years in, but this is only just the beginning. ## **Join the Cloudsmith team!** We’re beyond excited for this next phase of Cloudsmith, and we’re currently hiring across all departments.[ Visit our careers page](https://apply.workable.com/cloudsmith/) and come help us revolutionize cloud-native supply chains! Package repositories were never something I thought about as a developer unless something didn’t work. For example, if it was slow, wouldn’t connect, wouldn’t install, or was overly complicated to configure. Mostly I wanted something I barely noticed. Something simple and easy to use. When I started my career, I was developing Windows apps in the late 2000s. My packages were the exes and dlls produced by my lovely big Visual Studio IDE. Our dependencies were either official windows libraries or proprietary 3rd party licensed libraries. The exes and dlls were stored in folders on an FTP server and could be accessed using Microsoft access controls- so I suppose the FTP server was my package repository. The software ran on on-premise hardware, and the users were an in-house team that I knew well. I owned the application and the entire software workflow. That software development workflow is very different from a more modern workflow where: - I work on a small part of a bigger project which uses multiple frameworks, languages, and containers. - My code is dependent on open source software (OSS) hosted externally. - Multiple developers work on the same codebase simultaneously and make frequent commits to the code repository. - Code could be built, scanned, and deployed many times a day via a CI/CD pipeline - The output of the build (the package) is deployed to the cloud - Distribution of the software package to customers is tracked and controlled As a developer, I want my package repository: - To store my packages somewhere securely - To have one place to view and control all my software packages in all formats- a single source of truth - To push/pull packages super fast for all regions my teams are based - To handle distributing my software to customers. - To be able to sign my packages and have that managed for me - To integrate easily with my other build and security tools in an automated way. - Something simple and easy to use with extensive documents - Good support when something goes wrong This was meant to be one blog- but it turns out package management is a dark horse and needed two blogs! This blog will give a few explanations that we in the package management industry throw around. Our next article on the topic: [Private Package Repositories Part 2: The Influencers](/blog/private-package-repositories-part-2) will go into the things that have influenced package management. ## **What is a Software Package?** A software package, artifact, or image is the output of building software- it groups together files containing your software along with the metadata about the software and dependencies in a well-defined format. Packages are typically versioned to provide a better and more manageable understanding of what software is being deployed. Packages promote the reuse of code as it can be dropped into another application and used easily. Packages are created using a package manager and are usually stored in a repository, like Cloudsmith. The table below details some common packages. ```json { "_key": "f46daff4609e", "_type": "image", "alt": "Common Types of Packages", "asset": { "_createdAt": "2025-06-05T08:00:03Z", "_id": "image-b8ad3024f09625da83a3d3eb8871d7fb0356fe7b-612x424-png", "_rev": "2MVa2LY6RC9Yy6hPJdhu3P", "_type": "sanity.imageAsset", "_updatedAt": "2025-06-05T08:00:03Z", "assetId": "b8ad3024f09625da83a3d3eb8871d7fb0356fe7b", "extension": "png", "metadata": { "_type": "sanity.imageMetadata", "blurHash": "V0RC[6of0000of~q00?bM{0000_3%M00?b~q~qM{00-;", "dimensions": { "_type": "sanity.imageDimensions", "aspectRatio": 1.4433962264150944, "height": 424, "width": 612 }, "hasAlpha": true, "isOpaque": true, "lqip": "", "palette": { "_type": "sanity.imagePalette", "darkMuted": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#383838", "foreground": "#fff", "population": 0.79, "title": "#fff" }, "darkVibrant": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#424242", "foreground": "#fff", "population": 0, "title": "#fff" }, "dominant": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#7c7c7c", "foreground": "#fff", "population": 1.67, "title": "#fff" }, "lightMuted": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#bcbcbc", "foreground": "#000", "population": 0.82, "title": "#fff" }, "lightVibrant": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#bcbcbc", "foreground": "#000", "population": 0, "title": "#fff" }, "muted": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#7c7c7c", "foreground": "#fff", "population": 1.67, "title": "#fff" }, "vibrant": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#7f7f7f", "foreground": "#fff", "population": 0, "title": "#fff" } } }, "mimeType": "image/png", "originalFilename": "aHViPTEyMzY2NSZjbWQ9aXRlbWVkaXRvcmltYWdlJmZpbGVuYW1lPWl0ZW1lZGl0b3JpbWFnZV82MTVjNDUyNmFhZjEyLnBuZyZ2ZXJzaW9uPTAwMDAmc2lnPTRkNDE1NThhYTM3NWJjYjg4ZjJiOWM0Y2ZkZTBlMzg1", "path": "images/rafvlnhi/production/b8ad3024f09625da83a3d3eb8871d7fb0356fe7b-612x424.png", "sha1hash": "b8ad3024f09625da83a3d3eb8871d7fb0356fe7b", "size": 41723, "uploadId": "fNZzdWK1P4RAohoTGjcnaOlbSae0QUIW", "url": "https://cdn.sanity.io/images/rafvlnhi/production/b8ad3024f09625da83a3d3eb8871d7fb0356fe7b-612x424.png" }, "caption": "Common Types of Packages", "link": null, "markDefs": null } ``` ## Package Metadata Package metadata describes the package with information about the author, repository location, repository version, file type, license, package dependencies, and more. Metadata can also have information about the CI/CD build like who triggered the build, the build time, approval information, vulnerability information, or user-created metadata. ## **What is a Package Manager?** A package manager is software that creates, uploads, installs, upgrades, and configures software packages for a language, container, or OS. Every package type gets its own unique package manager: Debian’s RPMs use apt-get, Node’s packages use NPM, Python’s packages use Pip, etc. Some packages have more than one Package Manager to choose from. For example, .NET’s NuGet packages can use [Chocolately](https://chocolatey.org/) or the native NuGet package manager. Similarly, Java’s Maven packages can use the native Maven package manager, Gradle or Ivy. Some package managers are more stable, easier to use, have faster build times, or have access to different packages available in their repositories. ## **What is a Package Repository?** A package repository, registry, or feed is a place to store all of your packages. Package repositories work closely with package managers, and the terms can get mangled when talking about software tools, like Cloudsmith or JFrog’s Artifactory, that support most software packages. The terms become mingled because these tools have the functionality of a package manager to upload, download and configure packages, and they also host all the packages on repositories. It is quite a task to provide support for many formats as every language/OS has its unique package manager. ## **Dependencies and Dependency resolution** If a package uses another package, that package is called a dependency. Almost every project uses third-party packages as libraries and/or frameworks. Resolving dependencies in a package is no joke- specifying and resolving the dependencies and relationships between libraries and packages is one of those [NP-hard ](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.07851.pdf)problems. Version constraints on packages mean package managers have to solve a problem equivalent to SAT solving. On top of dependency resolution being a complex problem to solve, different packages have different ways to resolve conflicts or missing dependencies and some package types have deep dependency trees (I’m looking at you NPM). All in all, dependency solving is a toughie. ## **What are Multiformat Repositories?** [Multi-format repositories](https://cloudsmith.com/product/universal/) allow you to store packages of different types in one repository. Many package managers don’t let you store different packages in the same repository. Multi-format repositories are especially useful if your tech stack uses multiple languages and containers - read more in our article on [why modern tech stacks need multi-format repositories](/blog/modern-tech-stacks-need-multi-tenant-repositories). Multiformat Repositories means fewer repositories to manage- I think that is a good thing. ## **Public vs. Private Package Repositories** Many languages and containers provide a Public repository to host your packages. NPM, for example, provides npm public registry, and Python provides the PyPI repository. Publicly available packages have made it so much easier to use Open Source Software (OSS) and have changed how software is built and deployed forever. The benefits of OSS for organizations are numerous. Still, community-controlled public repositories cannot guarantee availability, bring an increased risk of introducing security vulnerabilities, generally only host one package format, and cannot control who downloads your package. Many organizations need a private repository for their packages for [security](https://cloudsmith.com/product/secure/), compliance, availability, or reliability. On top of that, private repositories provide additional features required by enterprises, such as: - Single Sign-On - Custom Domains - Access Controls for Teams and Entitlement tokens - Multiformat packaging - Software Distribution - Logging and metric data - Integration with CI/CD and Security tools - Upstreams - Tech Support - Service Level Agreements guaranteeing uptimes ## **What are Upstreams?** Package Upstreams allow users to consume packages hosted elsewhere from public repositories like Maven Central, PyPI, NuGet.org, npmjs.com, or Debian’s package registry. When a repository has an upstream configured, the service regularly checks for new upstream packages and stores them in the private repository The rules around the order and precedence of what repositories to search and what packages to select will determine what packages are used. Generally, packages in the repository itself supersede packages from the upstream. Upstreams allow dependencies to be isolated from untrusted 3rd party sources to protect you from outages and slowness of external services. ## **Signing Packages** The whole point of signing a package is to be able to [trust](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf) that a package is safe to download or use as a dependency. Many software organizations use their own GPG/RSA key for signing their metadata and packages which are usually managed by the private repository. Signing a package with your organization’s key lets Developers know that this package was written and approved by your organization. Lately, the software community is coming to grips with how OSS software can be the source of entry in supply chain attacks. It’s a lot harder to trust code that was not written and signed by your organization. Signing OSS packages can help but even if an OSS package is signed it is not clear if you should trust it. In the absence of using a trusted signed OSS package, package repositories can scan OSS packages for known vulnerabilities and extract metadata information like version, who wrote the code, results from scans, or license information which can provide insight into the provenance of the software package. Recently, CNCF’s [Sigstore Project](https://www.sigstore.dev/) has been working to improve trust in OSS software by improving transparency and simplifying the signing process by providing a service for package signing similar to [Let’s Encrypt’s](https://letsencrypt.org/) service to enable HTTPS. Private package repositories need to be able to manage signing packages and maintain keys, work with a package’s native signing tools, and work towards integrating with new tools to sign and trust OSS packages. ## **SBOM and SPDX** The Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) is essentially a list of all components, including licenses and dependencies contained in a software product. Most software includes dependencies sourced from the open-source community or commercial software. New regulations have come in to [publish the SBOM of software used by US government departments](/blog/united-in-security-us-and-uk-vow-to-improve-software-supply-chains). - Related read: [What is an SBOM](/blog/understanding-and-implementing-a-software-bill-of-materials) The end-user of software can use the SBOM to perform vulnerability and license analysis of their software packages which can evaluate risk in a software product. The Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) is an open standard for communicating the SBOM. SPDX has become [internationally recognized](https://linuxfoundation.org/press-release/spdx-becomes-internationally-recognized-standard-for-software-bill-of-materials/) as the standard for communicating the SBOM. SPDX is integral to generating an SBOM that can be easily shared and automated. Explore the current state of software supply chains, and why Continuous Packaging is critical to secure CI/CD pipelines in our newly released report with O'Reilly. ```json { "_key": "8631c8aa1d58", "_type": "image", "alt": null, "asset": { "_createdAt": "2025-06-05T08:00:04Z", "_id": "image-e8e13a4f99a41d12d9de17bb5066a2932bae50ea-286x400-png", "_rev": "2MVa2LY6RC9Yy6hPJdhuA1", "_type": "sanity.imageAsset", "_updatedAt": "2025-06-05T08:00:04Z", "assetId": "e8e13a4f99a41d12d9de17bb5066a2932bae50ea", "extension": "png", "metadata": { "_type": "sanity.imageMetadata", "blurHash": "dABy?P4:xsMz.AMcxvNFR59F?bM{D$D%?HNH-=ROWYxt", "dimensions": { "_type": "sanity.imageDimensions", "aspectRatio": 0.715, "height": 400, "width": 286 }, "hasAlpha": false, "isOpaque": true, "lqip": "", "palette": { "_type": "sanity.imagePalette", "darkMuted": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#3b3245", "foreground": "#fff", "population": 0.09, "title": "#fff" }, "darkVibrant": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#7a420b", "foreground": "#fff", "population": 0.64, "title": "#fff" }, "dominant": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#7a420b", "foreground": "#fff", "population": 0.64, "title": "#fff" }, "lightMuted": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#c5b6ba", "foreground": "#000", "population": 0.45, "title": "#fff" }, "lightVibrant": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#dd887c", "foreground": "#000", "population": 0.05, "title": "#fff" }, "muted": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#94545c", "foreground": "#fff", "population": 0, "title": "#fff" }, "vibrant": { "_type": "sanity.imagePaletteSwatch", "background": "#ead919", "foreground": "#000", "population": 0.32, "title": "#000" } } }, "mimeType": "image/png", "originalFilename": "image.png", "path": "images/rafvlnhi/production/e8e13a4f99a41d12d9de17bb5066a2932bae50ea-286x400.png", "sha1hash": "e8e13a4f99a41d12d9de17bb5066a2932bae50ea", "size": 113628, "uploadId": "I5DUeDqmz1Rr8sRvi1TC3dDQElJX9TYZ", "url": "https://cdn.sanity.io/images/rafvlnhi/production/e8e13a4f99a41d12d9de17bb5066a2932bae50ea-286x400.png" }, "caption": null, "link": null, "markDefs": null } ``` ```json { "_key": "AmNNefdS", "_type": "callout", "content": [ { "_key": "44d99a62c754", "_type": "block", "children": [ { "_key": "7ac3dfc1a098", "_type": "span", "marks": [], "text": "Download the O'Reilly report for free: " }, { "_key": "56c10b7d0b75", "_type": "span", "marks": [ "a1b4399a3c29", "strong", "strong" ], "text": "The Rise of Continuous Packaging" } ], "markDefs": [ { "_key": "a1b4399a3c29", "_type": "link", "href": "https://cloudsmith.com/developers/resources/the-rise-of-continuous-packaging/", "linkType": "href", "openInNewTab": true } ], "style": "normal" } ], "markDefs": null, "variant": "info" } ``` ## **Package License Compliance** A software license agreement is a legal document chosen by a software company or developer on how a user can use the software and should be included in the package. There are many software licenses with different legal terms, support agreements, limitations, and costs. Most software licences fall into two groups either: - Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), e.g., GNU General Public Licence (GPL), Apache, BSD, and MIT - Proprietary software License, e.g., EULA. A package manager should match the license defined within a package's metadata as accurately as possible. For example, the BSD license specified within this package's metadata is checked against a valid SPDX license. Adding this license reporting functionality gives Developers more visibility, control, and management across all aspects of your package management. ## **Software Distribution** Software vendors can use private package repositories to distribute their software. Private repositories that can distribute software packages eliminate the need to rehost the package elsewhere for customers and all the management associated with that. Software vendors distributing software may need their private repository to: - Provide a reliable and fast software package distribution. - Control who downloads your package. Cloudsmith does this with [entitlement tokens](https://help.cloudsmith.io/docs/entitlements). - Gather metrics on downloads. - Manage license agreements. - Create custom domains. - Provide Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to guarantee service levels. ## **Package Delivery Network** A content delivery network (CDN) refers to a geographically distributed group of servers that work together to provide fast delivery of Internet content. At Cloudsmith, we developed what we call the Package Delivery Network, or PDN. It’s like a highly customized CDN that knows that it deals with packages, package authentication, and client package management tooling. It helps deliver packages faster to distributed users. ## **Package Repositories** Package management was a lot simpler at the start of my tech career when it was just me, an exe, and an FTP server! Package management has always been complex, even when dealing with a more straightforward landscape of a small number of dependent packages dealing with only one package format. Modern package repositories need to host many formats, deal with complicated dependencies from many feeds while dealing with the problems of scaling, distribution, and security. Check out part 2 of this blog below, where we delve into trends in the software landscape that have changed what developers and organizations want from a package repository. [Private Package Repositories Part 2: The Influencers](/blog/private-package-repositories-part-2) ```json { "_key": "a5c1d4b9c6fc", "_type": "video", "id": "WnNnLWGHfOk", "markDefs": null, "thumbnail": { "_type": "image", "asset": { "_ref": "image-8da87e815b96a317747401bbcb04a06513a29b9e-480x360-jpg", "_type": "reference" } }, "title": "LF Live Webinar: Continuous...Everything? Integration, Packaging, Delivery, and Security All in One!", "url": "https://www.youtube.com/embed/WnNnLWGHfOk?feature=oembed" } ``` Application delivery pipelines share many traits with any assembly line. Open source libraries, runtimes, databases, and base images are raw materials to be inspected to ensure they meet quality and security standards. Modern applications combine these raw materials with custom code to create dynamic and complex environments, opening up an extremely effective attack vector. While not new, software supply chain attacks are on the rise with changes in how applications are built. With open source components making up more than 80% of modern codebases, having a reliable “source of truth” for the security, compliance, and provenance of software and its dependencies is critical. In this webinar, Snyk, CircleCI and Cloudsmith will share practices and tools that are helping developers create applications with integrity, quality, and security. You’ll see how to: - Find and fix known vulnerabilities in app dependencies and container images - Build a source of truth for open source packages to avoid malicious packages - Combine continuous packaging and security into a CircleCI delivery pipeline Create provenance and security quality gates as part of deployment workflows Join Ryan Pedersen (CircleCI), Tom Gibson (Cloudsmith), and Tomas Gonzalez (Snyk) to learn how to manage and mitigate this new risk profile and create a more holistic application security approach. Deep in the woods, where trees are black and the air is thick, steam rises wistfully across the damp ground. A single dirt track, barely wide enough to pass, scars the terrain for what seems like an endless number of miles. It winds its way through the mountains and valleys, across a rickety bridge over a cavernous ravine, before plunging back into darkness, the trees bending over as if to grasp those passing through. Finally, in a small clearing, a lonely decrepit wooden cabin reveals itself. The cabin sits unobtrusively in its setting, a small ranch porch makes it almost look inviting. The surrounding trees sway and creak in the wind as if whispering a foreboding message of warning. Evil lurks all around it. But it is deep within that the problem lies. In the rotting floor, a trap door reveals a rickety staircase which leads ominously down into the blackness below. A single candle is enough to illuminate a narrow claustrophobic path, deep into the tight bowels of the cellar. The stale air is suffocating. Down the passage, through an opening in the rock-built foundations, a small room houses an old oak desk sitting dusty and alone. The world has forgotten it. In the bottom drawer, locked with a key long lost, is a book wrapped in a thick, almost rigid cloth. Within this book are the incantations to unlock a devastating demonic possession. ****A public software repository is the cabin. The book is the dependency you're not tracking. The aimless, unwitting temporary residents are the developers and processes used to build your software supply chain. Without knowledge. Without protection. Bad things will happen.**** And without realizing it, the incantations are spoken, and the demonic possession is unleashed. You’ve opened a door, a conduit to another place. A scary and unrelenting place. Filled with demons that want your soul. And a vessel to infect the rest of your world. A host to do terrible, horrible things. Things that no one wants or expects. Control is lost. So fire up the chainsaw and load your shotgun… tackle the demons head on. Be Ash. Not Linda. Or better yet. Be smart and just don’t open the Necronomicon. “Groovy.” Cloudsmith accepted to The Northern Ireland Cyber Security Cluster - companies developing world-leading cybersecurity technologies. We were delighted to have joined The Northern Ireland Security Cluster - NICYBER. The cluster consists of companies developing world-leading cybersecurity technologies from Northern Ireland, supported by Queen’s University Belfast Centre for Secure Information Technologies [https://www.qub.ac.uk/ecit/CSIT/](https://www.qub.ac.uk/ecit/CSIT/), the UK’s leading university cybersecurity research centre. Security is a many-headed Hydra. As soon as you've addressed one aspect of securing your software or infrastructure, more attack vectors appear. You can never be secure enough. That's why at Cloudsmith we're pushing the concept of Universal Provenance as a key aspect of your company's security solution. We see Universal Provenance as integral to the shift-left initiative - moving quality and security considerations towards the developer - by using packaging to create logical units of software that can be versioned and tested early in the development lifecycle. Cloudsmith provides tooling for making the storing, sharing and controlling of software assets easy. This enables developers and teams to secure their IP in a centralised, highly available and traceable repository - all while reducing costs and complexity, and accelerating development cycles. Security is inherent to DevOps best practices. All modern software pipelines require detailed audit trails to quickly identify issues, weed out bad actors and analyse potential vulnerabilities. Cloudsmith’s [universal package management](https://cloudsmith.com/) service gives organisations the high-fidelity control plane they need to understand the provenance of their deployments - which is vital for minimising or eliminating modern security risks. A modern tech stack is filled with choices; as the tech market has exploded over the last ten years; there are solutions for nearly every conceivable problem. Software as a Service is now commonplace amongst companies large and small. With so many options to choose from, it's easy to make bad choices. And if you do choose poorly, that choice could haunt you for years, decades, or even centuries (for all you immortals out there). It is this simple truth that created such a nightmare for one particular company in the tale we are about to tell. But just to warn you: this story might give you a fright if you are easily haunted by poor tech choices so proceed at your own risk... Our story begins in early 2016. The first Deadpool was taking over the cinema and remote-working wasn't the default. This particular company - let’s call them Cloudsmith - was beginning to think about their deployment strategy for Cloudsmith and had some choices to make. They’d already selected AWS so it was between Puppet and Chef for configuration management. At the time, both tools were comparable and there wasn’t too much to distinguish between them. What did they choose, you ask? Chef for… well, fairly arbitrary reasons. As they leaned into the cloud (via an early AWS OpsWorks) it became obvious they needed to move to a better Infrastructure as Code solution. Already in the Chef ecosystem; they opted for Chef Provisioning (now you can see where this is going?) over Hashicorp’s Terraform. Time passed. Terraform got better and better, driven by a great, responsive open source community providing timely, up-to-date releases supporting all the new bells and whistles getting released on AWS. Chef Provisioning started to rot. The magic unraveled to reveal the monsters within. Slow support for the latest and greatest began to affect the company's ability to keep up with the Jones’. Nodes started to fail, and through a perfect storm of deprecated technology, meant they could not simply bring them back up. It was both mind-boggling and very worrying. Eventually, they mapped out a plan to take a month out of their engineering roadmap to move to Terraform, now the clear market leader. A month. That’s a month of invisible work to their customers. While you could argue that uptime and stability are visible, it’s pretty easy to argue that it’s not. It’s table stakes. Or should be. No matter what; it’s no new products, no new features, for an entire month. A nightmare for any business, this became a haunting reality for the company. But what else could they do? They took the hit in time and rebuilt their infrastructure stack using Terraform - replacing the months of work previously dedicated to Chef Provisioning (which has since gone to its grave). ****Proceed with caution**** Fast forward to the year 2020 and we know it was the right choice, at the right time but take it from us and proceed with caution when making similar decisions for your organization. Choices like these can have ramifications for years. And they are sometimes not easy to unpick. (In fact, we’ve another one which is less impactful to the platform but equally annoying but for that story you’ll have to come back next year!) We are acutely aware that our customers make the choice every day to store and distribute their assets using the Cloudsmith platform. We believe in transparency. Trust. And an adaptive, well-thought-out, [technology roadmap](https://cloudsmith.com/roadmap/). No matter what tool you’re evaluating, remember: choose wisely.