A good package mirror policy fits on one page and answers seven questions: what the mirror is for, who owns it, who may publish, how new packages are admitted, how access is granted and removed, what is logged, and what to do in an incident. Short enough that people read it, specific enough that an auditor can see it operating.
Why write it down
Policies for small teams fail when they are long. A one page document that matches how you actually work is better than a template nobody follows. It also gives a customer or reviewer something concrete when they ask how you control your software inputs. This is not legal advice, and it is not a claim of any certification. It is a working document for your team.
The seven sections
- Purpose and scope. One sentence stating that all build and developer machines install packages through the mirror, and name the ecosystems covered.
- Owner and backup owner. Names and roles, not teams.
- Who may publish. List the teams or service accounts that may upload internal packages, and state that publishing needs a reviewed commit.
- Admitting new packages. Say who approves a new public dependency and what they check, such as maintainer history, age, download pattern and license. Link to your intake checklist.
- Access. How accounts are granted, that tokens are scoped and expire, and that leavers are removed on their last day.
- Logging and review. What the mirror records and who looks at it, with a cadence.
- Incidents. How to pull a package from the mirror, who decides, who is told, and where the runbook lives.
A template to adapt
Package Mirror Policy (version, date, owner)
1. Scope: all builds and laptops use the internal mirror for npm, PyPI, Maven.
2. Owner: <name>, backup: <name>.
3. Publishing: service accounts from CI only; a reviewed commit is required.
4. New packages: approved by <role> using the intake checklist.
5. Access: single sign-on; tokens scoped and rotated every <period>.
6. Logs: downloads, publishes and permission changes kept <period>; reviewed monthly.
7. Incident: runbook at <link>; owner may block a package immediately.
Replace the bracketed items with your real values. Resist adding anything you do not do.
Make the policy provable
Every line should map to something you can show. For publishing rules, a screenshot or export of repository permissions. For logging, a sample log entry. For leavers, a recent ticket. Keep these in an evidence folder, dated. Safeguard's compliance and evidence automation can help organize that kind of record, and the claim stays modest: you are showing what you do, not asserting a standard.
Review it
Put a calendar reminder every six months. Ask whether each line is still true. Remove lines that are not, or fix the practice.
Try it yourself
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen.
Look at how a control is tied to a framework requirement and to evidence, then do the same for each line of your policy.
Quick check
Does having this policy make us compliant with a standard?
No. It documents your practice. Any standard has its own scope, and certification needs an independent assessment.
Who should approve the policy?
Whoever is accountable for engineering risk, usually the head of engineering or security lead.
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
