<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic npm audit and vulnerabilities in ArcGIS Experience Builder Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-experience-builder-questions/npm-audit-and-vulnerabilities/m-p/1701187#M23281</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Following the installation guide for Experience Builder Developer Edition, after a fresh &lt;FONT color="#808080"&gt;&lt;FONT color="#999999"&gt;npm ci&lt;/FONT&gt; &lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;it's common to come across audit warnings (sometimes including high/critical ones).&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#808080"&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;What's the "recommended approach" in practice: leave the shipped dependency tree as-is&amp;nbsp; or run an &lt;FONT color="#999999"&gt;npm audit fix&lt;/FONT&gt; / selective override on top of it ?&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would be interesting to hear how others using ExB Dev handle this in real-world setups.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#808080"&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;Thanks!&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 14:37:09 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>AndreasEugster</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-05-11T14:37:09Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>npm audit and vulnerabilities</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-experience-builder-questions/npm-audit-and-vulnerabilities/m-p/1701187#M23281</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Following the installation guide for Experience Builder Developer Edition, after a fresh &lt;FONT color="#808080"&gt;&lt;FONT color="#999999"&gt;npm ci&lt;/FONT&gt; &lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;it's common to come across audit warnings (sometimes including high/critical ones).&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#808080"&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;What's the "recommended approach" in practice: leave the shipped dependency tree as-is&amp;nbsp; or run an &lt;FONT color="#999999"&gt;npm audit fix&lt;/FONT&gt; / selective override on top of it ?&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would be interesting to hear how others using ExB Dev handle this in real-world setups.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#808080"&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;Thanks!&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 14:37:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-experience-builder-questions/npm-audit-and-vulnerabilities/m-p/1701187#M23281</guid>
      <dc:creator>AndreasEugster</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-11T14:37:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

