Yeah, this is my write-up – appreciate you taking the time to actually read and critique it.

You’re right on a few things:

• The title is doing a lot at once.
• The piece drifts between “how attackers think about CVEs/deps” and “how that shows up as middleware/payload/framework bugs.”

Where I disagree a bit is on “the tool is irrelevant” – NPMSCan in this context isn’t meant to be the star of the show, it’s the lens:

• I’m using NPMSCan as the recon surface: maintainer churn, weird postinstall scripts, version diffs, dead owners, sketchy publish timelines, etc.
• From that, the article pivots into: “OK, if you see this dependency pattern in a typical Next/Nuxt/React/Bun app, here’s the kind of bug path it usually maps to: auth bypass, cache poisoning, SSRF, Nuxt payload traversal, Bun command injection, etc.”

So it’s less “product article about NPMSCan,” more “here’s how a scanner + public npm metadata + framework conventions = realistic exploit paths.”

That said, your title suggestion is fair. Something like:

“How attackers turn CVE + npm metadata into real exploits in Next.js / Nuxt / React apps”

…is probably closer to what’s actually happening in the piece than the current headline. I might tweak it along those lines on future posts / cross-posts.

On the “diversions”: the middleware examples, route mishandling, etc. are meant as the downstream effects of bad dependency hygiene + vulnerable packages — but I agree I could have been more explicit when I switch from “scanner view” to “app behavior view” so people don’t feel like I’m jumping topics.

Anyway, thanks for the honest feedback. If there’s a specific section you felt was most off-topic or weakest, I’m happy to tighten it up in a follow-up or a v2 focused purely on one angle (e.g. “just cache-poisoning chains from npm deps”).