Borehole · Project · free tier
idurar/idurar-erp-crm
Free reading: not for reliance
e935dec · 1,646 commits · 460 files
Read 2026-10-23

idurar/idurar-erp-crm: technical due diligence, read from its repository

What Borehole read in idurar/idurar-erp-crm's code and history at e935dec: 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.

DimensionRating
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenancestrong
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturityadequate
Product & Engineering Maturitystrong
Security & Reliability Postureadequate
Observability & Operationsadequate
Fit with the Acquirernot assessable

What the repository says

  • LICENSE: Relicensed: MIT → SUL-1.0 (2023-10-31) → Elastic-2.0 (2023-12-21) → AGPL-3.0 (2024-09-28)

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

strong
01.6

frontend/src/utils/countryList.js is 1,041 lines, 26× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 40 lines. 1 file exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,041. 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.

Evidence
frontend/src/utils/countryList.js:1 — 1,041 lines (26× median)

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

adequate
02.3

Tests are absent or token

adequate

0 test files against 331 source files (0.0%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.

Evidence
0 test files / 331 source files

Product & Engineering Maturity

strong

No finding.

Security & Reliability Posture

adequate
05.25

2 environment files are committed

adequate

backend/.env, frontend/.env are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.

Evidence
backend/.env — committed environment file
frontend/.env — committed environment file
05.26

49 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 54 high or critical in what ships

adequate

49 of 660 locked dependencies match 134 published advisories in OSV, 65 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version.

Evidence
backend/package-lock.json — fast-xml-parser 4.2.5: GHSA-m7jm-9gc2-mpf2 (critical), fixed in 4.5.4
backend/package-lock.json — form-data 2.3.3: GHSA-fjxv-7rqg-78g4 (critical), fixed in 2.5.4
backend/package-lock.json — form-data 4.0.0: GHSA-fjxv-7rqg-78g4 (critical), fixed in 4.0.4
05.60

Relicensed: MIT → SUL-1.0 (2023-10-31) → Elastic-2.0 (2023-12-21) → AGPL-3.0 (2024-09-28)

adequate

The root licence changed 3 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.

Evidence
LICENSE — MIT from 2021-09-19
LICENSE — SUL-1.0 from 2023-10-31
LICENSE — Elastic-2.0 from 2023-12-21
LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2024-09-28
05.65

4 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical

adequate

The newest was published on 2026-10-03. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 3 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 4.1.1. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.

Evidence
2026-10-03: CVE-2026-104475 (moderate): IDURAR ERP CRM through 4.1.1 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows authenticated users to inject scripts by uploading unsanitized SVG
2026-08-26: CVE-2026-81031 (high): IDURAR ERP CRM changes the password of whichever account a request names rather than the account making the request. The update handler in backend/src/controlle
2026-08-11: CVE-2026-72600 (high): A broken access control vulnerability in Idurar IDURAR ERP CRM 4.1.0 allows unauthenticated remote attackers to download invoice PDF files containing customer P
2024-10-04: GHSA-948g-2vm7-mfv7 (high): Path Traversal (unauthenticated user can read sensitive data)

Observability & Operations

adequate
06.1

No telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere

adequate

None of 380 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.

Evidence
searched 380 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 0 matched
06.2

No structured logging library is in use

adequate

Nothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.

Evidence
searched 380 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched
06.8

One request cannot be followed through the logs

adequate

Nothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.

Evidence
no request id, correlation id or tracing found
06.9

No error reporter is wired in

adequate

Nothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.

Evidence
no error reporter initialised

Fit with the Acquirer

not assessable

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

Read more, or read your own

The full report on idurar/idurar-erp-crm: 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.