Read 2026-11-03
termix-ssh/termix: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in termix-ssh/termix's code and history at 6b06059: 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 | adequate |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongpackages/plugin-sdk/src/backend.ts is 3,198 lines, 33× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 95 lines. 23 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,198. 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/plugin-sdk/src/backend.ts:1 — 3,198 lines (33× median) |
src/backend/database/routes/plugins.ts:1 — 2,853 lines (30× median) |
packages/plugin-sdk/src/manifest.ts:1 — 2,714 lines (28× median) |
packages/plugin-sdk/src/testing.ts:1 — 2,669 lines (28× median) |
src/backend/database/routes/rbac.ts:1 — 2,384 lines (25× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
adequateTests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (src/backend/tests/plugins/settings-routes.test.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.
src/backend/tests/plugins/settings-routes.test.ts:261 — test retry |
14% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate41 of 300 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.
| 41 commits over 2,000 lines |
Product & Engineering Maturity
adequate5% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 84 fixes in the last 24 months, 4 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| 4 of 84 |
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 1,845 tracked files; 0 present |
1 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.
docker/Dockerfile — runs as root |
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate5 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/docker.yml:71 — action pinned by tag |
.github/workflows/docker.yml:76 — action pinned by tag |
3 SQL statements built from strings
adequate3 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
src/backend/plugins/data.ts:284 — SQL built from a string |
src/backend/upgrade/snippets-schema-migration.ts:39 — SQL built from a string |
src/backend/utils/audit-retention-migration.ts:99 — SQL built from a string |
6 shell commands built from strings
adequate6 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.
src/backend/tls/self-signed.ts:156 — command run through a shell |
src/backend/tls/self-signed.ts:160 — command run through a shell |
src/backend/tls/self-signed.ts:190 — command run through a shell |
8 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 8 high or critical in what ships
adequate8 of 351 locked dependencies match 20 published advisories in OSV, 8 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.
package-lock.json — follow-redirects 1.16.0: GHSA-8r9p-f939-6h3c (high), fixed in 1.16.1 |
package-lock.json — multer 2.4.0: GHSA-q7qp-rjg7-q26m (high), fixed in 2.5.0 |
package-lock.json — undici 8.11.2: GHSA-2m5v-pch6-74hx (high), fixed in 8.12.2 |
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.
vendor/rimraf-compat — 2 tracked files, no licence file |
49 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 35 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-18. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. The record is incomplete: NVD: 2 records name termix with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-59951, CVE-2026-120322).
| 2026-10-18: GHSA-ccmp-2wpj-x458 (high), fixed in 1.0.2: Unauthenticated Exposure of Internal Web Services via Web Endpoint Non-Loopback Binding |
| 2026-10-11: GHSA-frx8-qqgg-7j7g (high), fixed in >= 26.10.0: Termix Desktop: any website can obtain a session on the embedded backend (CORS allows all origins + passwordless loopback auto-session) |
| 2026-10-11: GHSA-3q2m-5r5p-w45r (high), fixed in >= 26.10.0: Cross-user nested automation execution bypasses ownership checks and runs actions with victim privileges |
| 2026-10-11: GHSA-rgf3-2q88-q4wp (high), fixed in >= 26.10.0: Cross-User File Manager SSH Session Termination and State Replacement |
| 2026-10-11: GHSA-v3vp-ffww-q7pw (high), fixed in >= 26.10.0: Credential disclosure vulnerability in Termix |
Observability & Operations
adequateNo telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 1,790 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.
| searched 1,790 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 0 matched |
No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| searched 1,790 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
No 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 |
1 of 1 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate1 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
docker/docker-compose.yml:3 — image without a version |
Fit with the Acquirer
not assessableNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
Read more, or read your own
The full report on termix-ssh/termix: 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.