Hi @claes-hermansson_6271 ,
Good question; it sounds like you're creating a Package approval workflow, and are on the right track to thinking about "package governance".
Your observations about licenses and vulnerabilities are correct, and you could simply apply the same vulnerability source to each feed, if you want to use that feature. But i generally suggest putting it in the approved-packages
feed (using our workflow above).
A couple important things to note.
All packages have a license (even "no license" is a license), and a package with an unacceptable license (i.e. one you explicitly block) is always unacceptable. There are really no exceptions to this (maybe the CEO or legal officer someone could override this rule?), and if someone accidently uses an unacceptable license, it presents an immediate legal risk that you should remediate.
Very few packages have vulnerabilities, and those that do are usually acceptable to use. Most vulnerabilities won't impact your application, and those that do are usually easy to work-around aren't severe enough to warrant action. Severe vulnerabilities (i.e. where remediation is needed, like log4shell) will likely come up once or twice a year for you... if that.
When a severe vulnerability is discovered (i.e. one that you wish to block), tracking across feeds isn't really that big of a problem, compared to discovering which applications consumed that package. What I would recommend is investing in configuring package consumers (see section #2 of the article).
Cheers,
Steve