Borehole · Project · free tier
rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server
Free reading: not for reliance
76723ee · 50,000 commits · 3,715 files
Read 2026-10-22

rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server: technical due diligence, read from its repository

What Borehole read in rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server's code and history at 76723ee: 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.

DimensionRating
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenancestrong
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturityadequate
Product & Engineering Maturitystrong
Security & Reliability Postureadequate
Observability & Operationsnot assessable
Fit with the Acquirernot assessable

What the repository says

  • Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

strong
01.3

Commit messages are templated rather than written

adequate

35% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 32.2 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.

Evidence
3989× 'Update rabbitmq-components.mk'
836× 'Update erlang.mk'
256× 'Travis CI: Update config from rabbitmq-common'
01.6

erlang.mk is 4,972 lines, 54× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 92 lines. 56 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,972. 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.

Evidence
erlang.mk:1 — 4,972 lines (54× median)
deps/rabbit/src/rabbit_fifo.erl:1 — 4,834 lines (52× median)
deps/rabbitmq_stream/src/rabbit_stream_reader.erl:1 — 4,553 lines (49× median)
deps/rabbit/src/rabbit_fifo_v8.erl:1 — 4,332 lines (47× median)
deps/rabbit/src/rabbit_amqp_session.erl:1 — 4,313 lines (46× median)

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

adequate
02.29

Pinned dependencies have not moved in 54 months

adequate

The lockfile last changed 1646 days before the newest commit, and 9,304 commits have landed since. Every security fix published upstream in that time is absent until someone updates it, and the longer the gap the larger and riskier that update becomes.

Evidence
deps/rabbitmq_consistent_hash_exchange/examples/ruby/Gemfile.lock last changed 2022-04-20

Product & Engineering Maturity

strong
04.5

Effort is shifting from building to rewriting

adequate

Deleted lines per line added rose from 0.40 to 0.75 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. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.

Evidence
first half 0.40, second half 0.75 (split 2019-07-22)
04.62

Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

adequate

The newest release, v4.4.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v3.13.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.

Evidence
tag v4.4.0

Security & Reliability Posture

adequate
05.1

9 credential-shaped strings in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings

adequate

Strings 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.

Evidence
4 cited: AWS access key, where fakes are usual
private key block, where fakes are usual
05.6

2 Dockerfiles run the application as root

adequate

No 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.

Evidence
.oss-scanner/Dockerfile — runs as root
packaging/docker-image/Dockerfile — runs as root
05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

4 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; 1 step pipes 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.

05.9

1 vendored component with no licence

adequate

Third-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.

Evidence
deps/trust_store_http — 10 tracked files, no licence file
05.65

86 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 22 high or critical

adequate

The newest was published on 2026-09-18. 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 83 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 3.13.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-27gv-h5q6-cpwg (low) is fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries it cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run.

Evidence
2026-09-18: GHSA-j6hc-926v-qwq2 (moderate), fixed in 4.2.11: RabbitMQ STOMP consumers retain OAuth queue access after JWT expiration
2026-09-18: GHSA-6jvc-jx8w-m757 (low), fixed in 4.2.11: RabbitMQ Stream Publisher Management API Discloses Unauthorized Vhost and Stream Existence
2026-09-18: GHSA-342v-cj47-c9g8 (low), fixed in 4.2.11: Cross-vhost Stream consumer virtual-host existence disclosure
2026-09-18: GHSA-5jgm-jxp7-gwjh (moderate), fixed in 4.3.5: MQTT retained message store has no size or count limit and is never reclaimed
2026-08-18: GHSA-6gmw-wxch-cvvc (moderate), fixed in 3.13.19: Shovel URI credentials disclosed to read-only monitoring users via the shovel management HTTP API

Observability & Operations

not assessable

Not 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 assessable

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

Read more, or read your own

The full report on rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server: 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.