Read 2026-11-03
moltis-org/moltis: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in moltis-org/moltis's code and history at 8a12400: 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 |
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongNo finding.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
adequate169 tests are switched off
adequate169 skip markers across 22 of 179 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.
crates/nostr/tests/nostr_integration.rs:8 — skipped test |
crates/nostr/tests/nostr_integration.rs:38 — skipped test |
crates/nostr/tests/nostr_integration.rs:50 — skipped test |
Product & Engineering Maturity
strongNo finding.
Security & Reliability Posture
adequate2 credential-shaped strings committed to the tree
adequateMatches for Slack token 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. 1 other match 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.
| 2 cited: Slack token pattern matched |
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate19 steps pipe a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
Dockerfile:45 — download piped into a shell |
55 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 7 high or critical
adequate55 of 1,914 locked dependencies match 108 published advisories in OSV, 7 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. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
Cargo.lock — wasmtime 36.0.9: GHSA-897f-g5gm-fmxm (critical), fixed in 36.0.19 |
Cargo.lock — zip 2.4.2: GHSA-m665-v7pm-7grj (critical), fixed in 9.0.5 |
Cargo.lock — lopdf 0.38.0: GHSA-6fj4-rcr3-r7rr (high), fixed in 0.42.0 |
10 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate10 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.
crates/web/ui/src/chat-ui.ts:123 — HTML from a variable |
crates/web/ui/src/chat-ui.ts:152 — HTML from a variable |
crates/web/ui/src/pages/ChatPage.tsx:877 — HTML from a variable |
1 vendored component with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
crates/web/src/assets/js/vendor/luxon.mjs — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
3 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-08. 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 2 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 0.10.18. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
| 2026-09-08: CVE-2026-86808 (moderate): A security vulnerability has been detected in moltis-org moltis up to 20260818.10. The affected element is the function vault_unlock_handler/vault_recovery_hand |
| 2026-09-02: GHSA-88m8-m5rv-pxrg (high), fixed in >= 20260902.03: Session keys can collide into the same sandbox container and persisted home |
| 2026-09-02: GHSA-2p93-cxhg-rc7q (critical), fixed in 20260902.02: Remote code execution via unsanitized shell command in node-host [VULN-191] |
Observability & Operations
not assessableNo 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 moltis-org/moltis: 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.