Read 2026-11-03
openpanel-dev/openpanel: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in openpanel-dev/openpanel's code and history at 4acd46f: 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 | adequate |
| Security & Reliability Posture | adequate |
| Observability & Operations | strong |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongpackages/core/src/modules/ingest/src/bots/bots.ts is 7,318 lines, 80× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 91 lines. 13 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 7,318. 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.
packages/core/src/modules/ingest/src/bots/bots.ts:1 — 7,318 lines (80× median) |
packages/core/src/shared/referrers/index.ts:1 — 2,845 lines (31× median) |
packages/core/src/modules/export/export.routes.ts:1 — 1,556 lines (17× median) |
packages/core/src/modules/gsc/gsc.service.ts:1 — 1,523 lines (16× median) |
packages/core/src/modules/overview/overview.service.ts:1 — 1,432 lines (15× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
adequateAlmost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. 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.
| 1 of 5 markers present across 2,816 tracked files |
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (apps/start/playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
apps/start/playwright.config.ts:14 — test retry |
8% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate109 of 1290 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| 109 commits over 2,000 lines |
Product & Engineering Maturity
adequate155 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequateapps/start/package.json declares 155 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
apps/start/package.json — 155 declared |
packages/core/package.json — 51 declared |
apps/public/package.json — 33 declared |
packages/db/package.json — 11 declared |
Security & Reliability Posture
adequate3 credential-shaped strings in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key.
| 3 cited: Slack token, where fakes are usual |
13 dependencies float, and no lockfile is committed
adequateDependency versions are declared as ranges and no lockfile is committed, so a build today does not necessarily produce what a build last month produced. That matters twice over in a transaction: the thing being bought cannot be reproduced exactly, and a compromised upstream release arrives without anyone choosing to take it.
package.json:9 — >=1.4.4 |
package.json:10 — >=24.22.1 |
package.json:15 — >=1.4.4 |
packages/sdks/astro/package.json:35 — ^4.0.0 || ^5.0.0 || ^6.0.0 |
packages/sdks/express/package.json:22 — ^4.17.0 || ^5.0.0 |
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate4 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day; 2 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.
.github/workflows/docker-build.yml:234 — action pinned by tag |
.github/workflows/docker-build.yml:237 — action pinned by tag |
self-hosting/install.sh:5 — download piped into a shell |
3 SQL statements built from strings
adequate3 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 2 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
self-hosting/cli/src/export/export.ts:181 — SQL built from a string |
self-hosting/cli/src/export/export.ts:256 — SQL built from a string |
self-hosting/cli/src/export/export.ts:274 — SQL built from a string |
5 shell commands built from strings
adequate5 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. Ask where each one's input comes from.
tooling/publish/publish.ts:52 — command run through a shell |
tooling/publish/publish.ts:275 — command run through a shell |
tooling/publish/publish.ts:283 — command run through a shell |
18 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate18 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.
apps/public/src/app/(content)/[...pages]/page.tsx:123 — HTML from a variable |
apps/public/src/app/(content)/about/page.tsx:186 — HTML from a variable |
apps/public/src/app/(content)/articles/[articleSlug]/page.tsx:103 — HTML from a variable |
Manifest says MIT, licence file says AGPL-3.0
adequatepackage.json declares MIT. LICENSE.md contains the text of AGPL-3.0. Package managers and downstream users read the first; auditors and acquirers read the second. One of them is wrong, and until it is settled the terms this code is offered under are genuinely ambiguous.
package.json:6 — declares MIT |
LICENSE.md — text of AGPL-3.0 |
67 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 35 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-27. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. The record is incomplete: NVD: 3 records name openpanel with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2024-53537, CVE-2024-53582, CVE-2024-53584).
| 2026-10-27: GHSA-49hg-9qhc-4623 (critical), fixed in 3.16.2: Unauthenticated remote code execution through image decoding in /misc/og and /misc/favicon |
| 2026-10-27: CVE-2026-116805 (moderate): OpenPanel before 3.0.0 contains an information disclosure vulnerability that allows read-level project members to obtain argon2id hashes of ingestion credential |
| 2026-10-27: CVE-2026-116806 (moderate): OpenPanel before 3.0.0 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the onboarding.project tRPC mutation that allows non-admin organization members to crea |
| 2026-10-27: CVE-2026-116807 (high): OpenPanel before 3.0.0 contains an sql injection vulnerability that allows authenticated users to bypass tenant scoping by injecting unescaped profile filter na |
| 2026-10-27: CVE-2026-116808 (high): OpenPanel before 3.0.0 contains an sql injection vulnerability that allows authenticated users to read cross-tenant data by supplying a crafted property paramet |
Observability & Operations
strongAn error reporter is installed but never initialised
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 openpanel-dev/openpanel: 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.