Read 2026-11-03
infobyte/faraday: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in infobyte/faraday's code and history at d00e81c: 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 | adequate |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
What the repository says
- Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongfaraday/server/models.py is 4,397 lines, 95× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 46 lines. 6 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,397. 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.
faraday/server/models.py:1 — 4,397 lines (95× median) |
faraday/server/api/base.py:1 — 2,329 lines (50× median) |
faraday/server/api/modules/vulns_base.py:1 — 1,755 lines (38× median) |
faraday/server/api/modules/bulk_create.py:1 — 1,284 lines (27× median) |
faraday/server/api/modules/workflow.py:1 — 1,086 lines (23× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
adequate52 tests are switched off
adequate52 skip markers across 19 of 91 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.
tests/celery/test_api_bulk_create.py:95 — skipped test |
tests/celery/test_api_bulk_create.py:110 — skipped test |
tests/models/test_file.py:49 — skipped test |
Product & Engineering Maturity
strongReleases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v5.25.4, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v3.19.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
| tag v5.25.4 |
Security & Reliability Posture
adequate1 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
Dockerfile — runs as root |
1 deserialiser that can run code
adequate1 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (`yaml.load` without a safe loader). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
faraday/server/commands/app_urls.py:104 — code-executing deserialiser |
1 advisory against this project in the last 24 months
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-02. 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 1 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 3.19.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 6 records name faraday with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2024-4582, CVE-2024-4583, CVE-2024-4584, …).
| 2026-09-02: GHSA-v3fv-c24g-54p3 (moderate), fixed in 5.21.0: Authenticated Boolean-Based Data Extraction in Filter Endpoints |
Observability & Operations
adequateNo telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 658 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.
| searched 658 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 |
No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing 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.
| searched 658 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing 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.
| no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing 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.
| no error reporter initialised |
Fit with the Acquirer
not assessableNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
Read more, or read your own
The full report on infobyte/faraday: 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.