Read 2026-10-23
dromara/sa-token: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in dromara/sa-token's code and history at cb19134: its licence, security advisories, releases, review practice, tests, dependencies and operations. Every finding cites the file and line it rests on. The full report also covers the team and asks the questions the code cannot answer.
| Dimension | Rating |
|---|---|
| Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong |
| Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate |
| Product & Engineering Maturity | strong |
| Security & Reliability Posture | adequate |
| Observability & Operations | not assessable |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
What the repository says
LICENSE: Relicensed: GPL-2.0 → MIT (2020-12-15) → Apache-2.0 (2020-12-21)
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongsa-token-doc-new/public/static/translate.js is 14,365 lines, 224× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 64 lines. 9 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 14,365. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
sa-token-doc-new/public/static/translate.js:1 — 14,365 lines (224× median) |
sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/stp/StpLogic.java:1 — 3,269 lines (51× median) |
sa-token-doc-new/public/static/cases/cases--by-github-used-by.js:1 — 3,055 lines (47× median) |
sa-token-doc-new/public/static/donate/donate-list.js:1 — 1,668 lines (26× median) |
sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/stp/StpUtil.java:1 — 1,514 lines (23× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
adequateLittle of the recent change carries a trace of review
adequateIn the last 24 months, 96 of 983 commits (9.8%) carry any trace of review: a merge, a pull-request reference, a Reviewed-by or Reviewed-on trailer, a Closes/Fixes reference, a maintainer's sign-off on someone else's change, or a change applied by someone other than its author. That is low but not absent. Review may happen in a workflow this history does not record; a buyer should ask how change is approved before it ships.
| 96 of 983 commits in the last 24 months carry review evidence; 25.4% across all 2,999 |
26% of commit subjects say nothing about the change
adequate667 of 2,527 subjects are either under twelve characters or one of the standard placeholders — wip, fix, update. The history is therefore not usable for reconstructing why a decision was taken, which is the main thing an inheriting engineer needs it for. It says nothing about code quality and a great deal about how much context transfers with the asset.
| 667/2,527 low-content subjects (26.4%) |
| '第一版' |
| '完善文档' |
| 'ADD LICENSE' |
| '更新jar包引用方式' |
Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — none are present. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.
| 0 of 5 markers present across 2,383 tracked files |
Product & Engineering Maturity
strongNo finding.
Security & Reliability Posture
adequate1 credential-shaped string committed to the tree
adequateMatches for JWT appear in tracked files outside test and fixture paths. They stay in the history even after they leave the tree, so what matters is whether each was rotated. The code cannot tell whether any of them is live, and that decides whether this matters: none sits in production configuration, and none is in a format its provider keeps for live keys. Is any of these live? Show that each was rotated after it was committed, and when. 3 other matchs set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| JWT pattern matched |
3 deserialisers that can run code
adequate3 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (Java object streams). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/serializer/impl/SaSerializerTemplateForJdk.java:72 — code-executing deserialiser |
sa-token-starter/sa-token-jboot-plugin/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/jboot/SaJdkSerializer.java:61 — code-executing deserialiser |
sa-token-starter/sa-token-jfinal-plugin/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/jfinal/SaJdkSerializer.java:73 — code-executing deserialiser |
45 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate45 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-apikey/src/main/resources/static/index.html:87 — HTML from a variable |
sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-apikey/src/main/resources/static/index.html:125 — HTML from a variable |
sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-apikey/src/main/resources/static/index.html:138 — HTML from a variable |
Relicensed: GPL-2.0 → MIT (2020-12-15) → Apache-2.0 (2020-12-21)
adequateThe root licence changed 2 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
Observability & Operations
not assessableNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
Fit with the Acquirer
not assessableNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
Read more, or read your own
The full report on dromara/sa-token: every dimension, the questions for the room, and the audit log.
Survey a repository: free on public repositories. Private code is read on your own machine by a collector whose source you can read first.