1633b3a · 5,599 commits · 2,615 files
Issued 2026-10-04
Reads strong: 3 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
101 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Observability & Operations are adequate. 11 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/HAG4AMDRAAKR?via=badge)- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- 2 findings about one contributor are withheld: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits; a buyer of this report reads them.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 1% 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 ↑public/libs/tinymce/tinymce.d.ts is 3,239 lines, 45× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 71 lines. 9 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,239. 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 | public/libs/tinymce/tinymce.d.ts:1 — 3,239 lines (45× median) |
| line-count | resources/js/wysiwyg/lexical/core/LexicalSelection.ts:1 — 2,862 lines (40× median) |
| line-count | resources/js/wysiwyg/lexical/table/LexicalTableSelectionHelpers.ts:1 — 1,784 lines (25× median) |
| line-count | resources/js/wysiwyg/lexical/core/LexicalUtils.ts:1 — 1,764 lines (24× median) |
| line-count | resources/js/wysiwyg/lexical/core/nodes/LexicalTextNode.ts:1 — 1,431 lines (20× 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.
A move from JavaScript to TypeScript began 56 months ago and is 62% done
adequate200 product files are in the new language and 121 are still in the old one, 56 months after the first new file appeared. The new language's share of the lines rose from 0% to 87%, and moved 1 percentage points in the last year. Two languages for one job doubles what an engineer has to know, and the unmoved half is usually what nobody wants to touch. Ask whether finishing it is planned, and what it costs.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| file counts | 121 old, 200 new |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑7 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate7 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Nov 2021. 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.
| app/Entities/Models/Entity.php | app/Entities/Models/Entity.php — deprecated since Nov 2021 |
| app/Entities/Models/PageRevision.php | app/Entities/Models/PageRevision.php — deprecated since Nov 2021 |
| resources/js/wysiwyg/lexical/core/nodes/LexicalElementNode.ts | resources/js/wysiwyg/lexical/core/nodes/LexicalElementNode.ts — deprecated since Sep 2024 |
| resources/js/wysiwyg/lexical/link/index.ts | resources/js/wysiwyg/lexical/link/index.ts — deprecated since Sep 2024 |
| resources/js/wysiwyg/lexical/list/LexicalListItemNode.ts | resources/js/wysiwyg/lexical/list/LexicalListItemNode.ts — deprecated since Sep 2024 |
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, v26.05.5, is not on the branch this survey read. 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.
| 771a2d049 | tag v26.05.5 |
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 ↑None 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.
| guardrail-scan | checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 2,615 tracked files; 0 present |
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.
1 environment file is committed
adequate.env.example.complete is tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .env.example.complete | .env.example.complete — committed environment file |
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.
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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| dev/checksums/vendor | dev/checksums/vendor — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
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.
5 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-15. 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. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 1 record names bookstack with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2026-86285).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-89022 | 2026-09-15: CVE-2026-89022 (critical): BookStack before 26.05.5 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in its social login implementation that allows unauthenticated attackers to sign in as |
| CVE-2026-84695 | 2026-09-02: CVE-2026-84695 (critical): BookStack before 26.05.4 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in the drawing upload endpoint that accepts unvalidated base64 content and stores |
| CVE-2026-82450 | 2026-08-29: CVE-2026-82450 (high): BookStack before 26.05.4 contains a remote code execution vulnerability in the portable ZIP import functionality that allows users with Import Content and Creat |
| CVE-2026-67204 | 2026-08-24: CVE-2026-67204 (moderate): BookStack before 26.05.4 contains a broken access control vulnerability that allows authenticated API users with image-update or image-delete permissions to man |
| CVE-2026-5484 | 2026-04-03: CVE-2026-5484 (moderate): A weakness has been identified in BookStackApp BookStack up to 26.03. Affected is the function chapterToMarkdown of the file app/Exports/ExportFormatter.php of |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑No telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 2,355 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.
| telemetry-scan | searched 2,355 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 |
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.
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.
1 of 3 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| docker-compose.yml | docker-compose.yml:50 — image without a version |
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
8 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 No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 2,208 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- 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 coverageNot rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- Which of the people who wrote this are part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- 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- 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 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 Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- 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 PHP codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run PHP in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in resources/, app/, lang/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker-compose.yml). 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/bookstackapp/bookstack/1633b3a)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 — 90 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 90 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 — 65
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 5,731 · top5 share 0.021 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 59 · per kloc 0.21 · lines read 283,243 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.255 · early test per code 0.114 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.39 · early delete per insert 0.475 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 112 · share 0.438 · with tests 49 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 1,954 · compat files 1 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 2 |
| 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 3 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 33 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 3 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.knowledge_silos | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 113 · window last 24 months · with tracked 20 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 8 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 222 · source 2,142 · test ratio 0.104 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 248 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 4,822 · low content share 0.009 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 8 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 1 · test files 235 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 8 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 751 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 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 1 · ci configs 8 · product files 1,954 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.148 · merges 81 · long lived 12 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.007 · commits 682 · over 2000 lines 5 |
| 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 8,011 · share of insertions 0.0131 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 18.22 · repeat share 0.087 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,973 · write once share 0.225 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0209 · product files 1,920 · distinct blocks 136,040 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 285,160 · files 5 · per kloc 0.06 |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 2,355 |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 562,627 |
| 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.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisoryadvisories 0 · dependencies 156 · high or critical 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_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 4 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 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 155 · added in two years 4 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 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.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 17.0 · days since last tag -5 · commits last 90 days 110 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 25
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for PHP: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile outside development, test and example paths |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | no CI actions or pipe-to-shell installs to check |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for PHP, 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 |
| 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: 1 record names bookstack with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2026-86285) |
| 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 HAG4-AMDR-AAKR 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/HAG4AMDRAAKR?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 | 16 | strong |
12 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 16 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 16 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 16 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 16 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 15 | 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 |
| 5.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 6.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 6.0s ·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).