Read 2026-11-03
owasp-modsecurity/modsecurity: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in owasp-modsecurity/modsecurity's code and history at 1ebdc39: 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 | not assessable |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
What the repository says
LICENSE: Relicensed: GPL-2.0 → Apache-2.0 (2011-03-30).gitmodules:1: 4 submodule(s) this survey does not read: test/test-cases/secrules-language-tests, others/libinjection, bindings/python
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongsrc/parser/seclang-scanner.cc is 10,192 lines, 216× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 47 lines. 8 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 10,192. 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.
src/parser/seclang-scanner.cc:1 — 10,192 lines (216× median) |
src/parser/seclang-parser.hh:1 — 8,950 lines (190× median) |
src/parser/seclang-parser.cc:1 — 7,503 lines (159× median) |
src/parser/seclang-parser.yy:1 — 3,184 lines (67× median) |
src/transaction.cc:1 — 2,390 lines (50× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
adequateTests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate42 test files against 531 source files (7.9%). 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.
| 42 test files / 531 source files |
Almost 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 856 tracked files |
Product & Engineering Maturity
adequateEffort is shifting from building to rewriting
adequateDeleted lines per line added rose from 0.45 to 0.93 between the first and second halves of this history. Rework is normal and often healthy, but a rising ratio means an increasing share of the team's time is spent replacing code that already exists rather than building what does not. Whether that is deliberate repayment or churn is a question for the team.
| first half 0.45, second half 0.93 (split 2016-12-19) |
Fixes are 52% of recent work, up from 23%
adequateIn the last two quarters 52% of commits were fixes, against 23% in the quarters before. Rising fix work usually means quality debt is coming due, and it takes time that new work would have had.
| 39%, 65%, 22%, 16%, 25%, 26%, 13%, 39% |
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.
.oss-scanner/Dockerfile — runs as root |
Relicensed: GPL-2.0 → Apache-2.0 (2011-03-30)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
17 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 9 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-30. 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: 33 records name modsecurity with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2008-5676, CVE-2009-1902, CVE-2009-1903, …).
| 2026-09-30: GHSA-5pww-8rfg-9crf (high): RFC 2231 `filename*` Parameter Bypasses Multipart Filename Rules on RFC-Compliant Backends (Go, Python, Node, Java) |
| 2026-09-30: GHSA-4j47-8qcr-jf59 (moderate), fixed in 2.9.15: `t:base64DecodeExt` silently discards the entire decoded value on a malformed base64 padding group, bypassing rule matching |
| 2026-09-30: GHSA-qrch-pjfr-9g47 (moderate), fixed in 2.9.15: removeComments Transformation Fails to Strip Adjacent Comments, Enabling WAF Rule Bypass |
| 2026-09-30: GHSA-5m93-4h75-3p2w (moderate), fixed in 3.0.17: PCRE2 `@rxGlobal` match-limit errors are converted to no-match |
| 2026-09-30: GHSA-jx3r-phvx-2jmj (high), fixed in 3.0.17: ModSecurity v3 XML Request Body Processor Uninitialized Pointer Dereference Vulnerability |
Observability & Operations
not assessableNot rated: only 4 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 owasp-modsecurity/modsecurity: 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.