aa786fc · 7,858 commits · 7,742 files
Issued 2026-10-04
Reads strong: 5 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 1 is adequate and none is significant.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture is adequate. 1 finding is worth checking first. 9 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
[](https://borehole.dev/verify/RXH2F5J6XYEZ?via=badge)- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 05.60 Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 (2016-12-03) LICENSE.txt
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 7 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 2 high or critical in what ships
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 2 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 13% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑util/Migrator/DbScripts/2017-08-19_00_InitialSetup.sql is 4,464 lines, 117× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 38 lines. 23 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,464. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | util/Migrator/DbScripts/2017-08-19_00_InitialSetup.sql:1 — 4,464 lines (117× median) |
| line-count | util/RustSdk/rust/src/rsa_keys.rs:1 — 3,009 lines (79× median) |
| line-count | src/Api/Vault/Controllers/CiphersController.cs:1 — 1,937 lines (50× median) |
| line-count | src/Core/Platform/Mail/HandlebarsMailService.cs:1 — 1,658 lines (43× median) |
| line-count | util/Migrator/DbScripts/2021-07-22_00_Provider.sql:1 — 1,500 lines (39× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑10 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate10 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Jan 2022. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| src/Core/Utilities/JsonHelpers.cs | src/Core/Utilities/JsonHelpers.cs — deprecated since Jan 2022 |
| src/Api/Models/Request/DeviceVerificationRequestModel.cs | src/Api/Models/Request/DeviceVerificationRequestModel.cs — deprecated since Feb 2023 |
| src/Api/Models/Response/DeviceVerificationResponseModel.cs | src/Api/Models/Response/DeviceVerificationResponseModel.cs — deprecated since Feb 2023 |
| src/Api/Controllers/DevicesController.cs | src/Api/Controllers/DevicesController.cs — deprecated since Mar 2023 |
| src/Api/Auth/Models/Request/OrganizationSsoRequestModel.cs | src/Api/Auth/Models/Request/OrganizationSsoRequestModel.cs — deprecated since May 2023 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v2026.9.2, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2026.8.1. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 9ee4e0ebf | tag v2026.9.2 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑2 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. 1 other match set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| Slack token | 2 cited: Slack token, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
20 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.
| no-USER-instruction | bitwarden_license/src/Scim/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | bitwarden_license/src/Sso/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | src/Admin/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | src/Api/Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
7 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 2 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first7 of 760 locked dependencies match 9 published advisories in OSV, 5 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.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening bitwarden_license/src/Commercial.Infrastructure.EntityFramework/Commercial.Infrastructure.EntityFramework.csproj and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| bitwarden_license/src/Commercial.Infrastructure.EntityFramework/Commercial.Infrastructure.EntityFramework.csproj | bitwarden_license/src/Commercial.Infrastructure.EntityFramework/Commercial.Infrastructure.EntityFramework.csproj — AutoMapper 14.0.0: GHSA-rvv3-g6hj-g44x (high), fixed in 16.1.1; the project marks it as not affecting it, which is a question to ask |
| bitwarden_license/src/Scim/packages.lock.json | bitwarden_license/src/Scim/packages.lock.json — Microsoft.OpenApi 2.4.1: GHSA-v5pm-xwqc-g5wc (high), fixed in 2.7.5 |
| bitwarden_license/src/Commercial.Infrastructure.EntityFramework/packages.lock.json | bitwarden_license/src/Commercial.Infrastructure.EntityFramework/packages.lock.json — SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.6: GHSA-2m69-gcr7-jv3q (high) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate15 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/_move_edd_db_scripts.yml | .github/workflows/_move_edd_db_scripts.yml:54 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/_move_edd_db_scripts.yml | .github/workflows/_move_edd_db_scripts.yml:62 — action pinned by tag |
| util/SeederApi/Dockerfile | util/SeederApi/Dockerfile:19 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 (2016-12-03)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
| 8c14b2b17 | LICENSE.txt — GPL-3.0 from 2016-10-10 |
| 7e5679784 | LICENSE.txt — AGPL-3.0 from 2016-12-03 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
6 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (util/Seeder/Seeds/docs/architecture.md). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 234 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 1,503 commits landed in the last year, against 1,066 the year before (+41%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.1 and 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (src/Sql/dbo/Stored Procedures/OrganizationUser_UpdateManyRestore.sql). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a C# codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run C# in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in util/, src/, bitwarden_license/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (bitwarden_license/src/Scim/Dockerfile and 19 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/bitwarden/server/aa786fc)If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
Rejection log — 95 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 95 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 69
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 13,793 · top5 share 0.03 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 912 · per kloc 0.46 · lines read 1,988,415 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.51 · early delete per insert 0.282 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 282 · share 0.571 · with tests 161 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 5,465 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 16 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 1 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 48 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 31 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 5 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 10.8 · window last 24 months · authors 234 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 234 · active 12mo 100 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 234 · directories 6 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 234 · one off share 0.462 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 234 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 117 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 4 · joined 29 · regular last year 72 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 1 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 18 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,338 · source 6,328 · test ratio 0.211 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 246 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 7,808 · low content share 0.018 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 18 · with tests 3 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,444 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 18 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.009 · reverts 22 · recent commits 2,571 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 30 · days since lockfile changed 3 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 2 · ci configs 18 · product files 5,465 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.031 · commits 2,402 · over 2000 lines 74 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 3,819 · share of insertions 0.0012 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 23.44 · repeat share 0.026 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 5,051 · write once share 0.506 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0157 · product files 4,994 · distinct blocks 152,675 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,994,868 · files 4 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 35 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 31 · added in two years 15 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 10.0 · days since last tag -3 · commits last 90 days 433 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 26
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for C#: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for C#, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: its keyword search for 'server' is too broad to read whole (40,455 records); NVD: 923 records name server with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-1999-0070, CVE-1999-0079, CVE-1999-0103, …) |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; NVD: its keyword search for 'server' is too broad to read whole (40,455 records); NVD: 923 records name server with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-1999-0070, CVE-1999-0079, CVE-1999-0103, …) |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter RXH2-F5J6-XYEZ at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 106 checks this run performed, the bands they produced, and the commit they were read at. It does not cover checks written since.
Put the mark in your README
The image is wrapped in a link to the verification page, so a reader can check it rather than take it on trust. If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
[](https://borehole.dev/verify/RXH2F5J6XYEZ?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-04 · shown | borehole 0.7.13 | 11 | strong |
12 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 11 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 11 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 11 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 9 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 10 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 10 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 11 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 3 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | re-read from the facts kept at the last survey; nothing was cloned | facts version: 1d7c04ef8dca7905 |
| 31.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 31.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 31.9s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).