Read 2026-10-23
pinpoint-apm/pinpoint: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in pinpoint-apm/pinpoint's code and history at 1211461: 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 | strong |
| Product & Engineering Maturity | strong |
| Security & Reliability Posture | adequate |
| Observability & Operations | not assessable |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
What the repository says
- Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
.gitmodules:1: 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: grpc/grpc-idl
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongweb-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/atoms/scatterMock.ts is 2,724 lines, 47× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 57 lines. 6 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 2,724. 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.
web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/atoms/scatterMock.ts:1 — 2,724 lines (47× median) |
commons-profiler/src/main/java/com/navercorp/pinpoint/common/profiler/concurrent/jsr166/ConcurrentReferenceHashMap.java:1 — 1,743 lines (30× median) |
commons-profiler/src/main/java/com/navercorp/pinpoint/common/profiler/concurrent/jsr166/ConcurrentWeakHashMap.java:1 — 1,455 lines (25× median) |
agent-module/plugins/spring-data-r2dbc/src/main/java/com/navercorp/pinpoint/plugin/spring/r2dbc/SpringDataR2dbcPlugin.java:1 — 1,216 lines (21× median) |
web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/AlarmV2/AlarmV2RuleForm.tsx:1 — 1,063 lines (18× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
strongTests are retried until they pass
adequate13 tests are individually marked to retry. 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.
Product & Engineering Maturity
strongReleases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v3.1.1, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v3.0.1. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
| tag v3.1.1 |
Security & Reliability Posture
adequateNone of the standard security guard rails are configured
adequateThere is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.
| checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 10,814 tracked files; 0 present |
2 Dockerfiles run 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.
agent-module/agent/Dockerfile — runs as root |
hbase/Dockerfile — runs as root |
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate9 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. 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/create-dockerfiles.yml:53 — action pinned by tag |
.github/workflows/create-dockerfiles.yml:56 — action pinned by tag |
14 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 22 high or critical
adequate14 of 1,099 locked dependencies match 32 published advisories in OSV, 22 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.
web-frontend/src/main/v3/yarn.lock — handlebars 4.7.9: GHSA-8r5x-fm3f-whwj (critical), fixed in 4.7.10 |
web-frontend/src/main/v3/yarn.lock — shell-quote 1.10.0: GHSA-pqg4-j6r4-53mv (critical), fixed in 1.11.0 |
web-frontend/src/main/v3/yarn.lock — storybook 10.6.0: GHSA-f2ph-cmg5-wxc8 (critical), fixed in 10.6.2 |
4 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate4 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.
web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/HighLightCode/HighLightCode.tsx:75 — HTML from a variable |
web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/HighLightCode/HighLightCode.tsx:88 — HTML from a variable |
web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/Transaction/transaction-info/TransactionInfoFetcher.tsx:152 — HTML from a variable |
2 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-06-29. 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 3.0.1. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 15 records name pinpoint with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2020-4708, CVE-2023-0220, CVE-2023-25062, …).
| 2026-06-29: CVE-2026-57947 (moderate): Pinpoint through 3.1.0 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in the webhook registration endpoint that allows authenticated users to register int |
| 2026-06-29: CVE-2026-57948 (high): Pinpoint through version 3.1.0 contains an insecure session management vulnerability that allows attackers to access the pinpointJwt session cookie due to missi |
Observability & Operations
not assessableNot rated: only 5 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 pinpoint-apm/pinpoint: 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.