de0568c · 16,035 commits · 11,031 files
Issued 2026-10-23
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 Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity are 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/XHNECPQ1V23G?via=badge)- 05.60 Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 (2012-10-23) 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 14 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 2 high or critical in what ships
- 5 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is 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 | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 36% 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 ↑lib/tecnickcom/tcpdf/tcpdf.php is 24,900 lines, 415× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 60 lines. 139 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 24,900. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 97% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | lib/tecnickcom/tcpdf/tcpdf.php:1 — 24,900 lines (415× median) |
| line-count | lib/tecnickcom/tcpdf/include/tcpdf_font_data.php:1 — 18,448 lines (307× median) |
| line-count | js/highlight/highlight.js:1 — 13,440 lines (224× median) |
| line-count | lib/scssphp/scssphp/src/Compiler.php:1 — 10,531 lines (175× median) |
| line-count | core/metamodel.class.php:1 — 7,101 lines (118× 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 · adequate · ratings ↑Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate299 test files against 5,988 source files (5.0%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
| test-file-ratio | 299 test files / 5,988 source files |
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.
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 ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 credential-shaped string 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.
| private key block | private key block, 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.
14 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 2 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first14 of 111 locked dependencies match 32 published advisories in OSV, 3 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.
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 composer.lock settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| composer.lock | composer.lock — apereo/phpcas dev-master: GHSA-8q72-6qq8-xv64 (high); pinned to a commit or a branch, so whether it has the fix needs the dependency's own source |
| composer.lock | composer.lock — guzzlehttp/guzzle 7.10.0: GHSA-v5mv-p594-2x33 (high), fixed in 7.15.2 |
| composer.lock | composer.lock — symfony/mime 6.4.36: GHSA-qpmx-3rfj-7rhv (high), fixed in 6.4.40 |
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
adequatedatamodels/2.x/itop-portal-base/portal/.env 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.
| datamodels/2.x/itop-portal-base/portal/.env | datamodels/2.x/itop-portal-base/portal/.env — 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.
102 deserialisers that can run code
adequate102 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (PHP `unserialize`). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| application/displayblock.class.inc.php | application/displayblock.class.inc.php:509 — code-executing deserialiser |
| application/excelexporter.class.inc.php | application/excelexporter.class.inc.php:115 — code-executing deserialiser |
| application/utils.inc.php | application/utils.inc.php:646 — code-executing deserialiser |
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.
12 vendored components 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.
| datamodels/2.x/authent-cas/vendor/autoload.php | datamodels/2.x/authent-cas/vendor/autoload.php — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| datamodels/2.x/combodo-data-feature-removal/vendor/autoload.php | datamodels/2.x/combodo-data-feature-removal/vendor/autoload.php — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| datamodels/2.x/combodo-db-tools/vendor/autoload.php | datamodels/2.x/combodo-db-tools/vendor/autoload.php — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| datamodels/2.x/itop-attachments/vendor/autoload.php | datamodels/2.x/itop-attachments/vendor/autoload.php — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| datamodels/2.x/itop-oauth-client/vendor/autoload.php | datamodels/2.x/itop-oauth-client/vendor/autoload.php — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| datamodels/2.x/itop-portal-base/portal/vendor/autoload.php | datamodels/2.x/itop-portal-base/portal/vendor/autoload.php — 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.
Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 (2012-10-23)
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".
| 2ea00e00e | license.txt — GPL-3.0 from 2010-07-29 |
| 721faa7e1 | license.txt — AGPL-3.0 from 2012-10-23 |
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.
53 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 34 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-11. 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 3.3.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 17 records name iTop with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2011-4275, CVE-2013-0805, CVE-2015-6544, …).
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-2026-108717 | 2026-10-11: CVE-2026-108717 (moderate): Combodo iTop 3.1.0 through 3.3.0 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in LinkSetController.php that allows authenticated console users to bypass profi |
| GHSA-3mq5-p5vh-cw7r | 2026-08-10: GHSA-3mq5-p5vh-cw7r (high), fixed in 3.2.3: PHP Object Injection Leading to Remote Code Execution on user preferences |
| GHSA-h823-537c-xwfh | 2026-08-10: GHSA-h823-537c-xwfh (critical), fixed in 3.2.3: Remote code execution using external auth variable value |
| GHSA-2xh3-r27f-3pr5 | 2026-08-10: GHSA-2xh3-r27f-3pr5 (moderate), fixed in 3.2.3: Unauthenticated user can delete .readonly file |
| GHSA-cm4j-52rf-whgc | 2026-08-10: GHSA-cm4j-52rf-whgc (high), fixed in 3.2.3: Access control bypass via OQL joins |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
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
4 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 9,979 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 coverage- measured 65 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 793 commits landed in the last year, against 504 the year before (+57%). 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.
- 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 coverageNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- 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, with JavaScript alongside (16% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run PHP in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in lib/, datamodels/, sources/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- 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/combodo/itop/de0568c)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 — 92 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 92 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 — 61
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 28,704 · top5 share 0.024 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 240 · per kloc 0.23 · lines read 1,062,626 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.13 · early test per code 0.017 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.5 · early delete per insert 0.425 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 356 · share 0.337 · with tests 120 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 6,523 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 1 · settings off 2 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 17.5 · window last 24 months · authors 65 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 65 · active 12mo 20 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 65 · directories 15 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 65 · one off share 0.277 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 65 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 31 |
| 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 6 · joined 3 · regular last year 14 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 310 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 11 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 143 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 14,443 · low content share 0.014 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 11 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 508 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 11 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 4 · recent commits 1,298 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 13 · commits since 129 · days since lockfile changed 71 |
| 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 11 · product files 6,712 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.039 · commits 1,206 · over 2000 lines 47 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 0 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 56.53 · repeat share 0.152 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 7,646 · write once share 0.302 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,068,884 · files 54 · per kloc 0.09 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 1 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 1 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 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_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 2,100 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on AGPL-3.0license AGPL-3.0 |
| 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 273 · added in two years 157 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 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 21.5 · days since last tag 7 · commits last 90 days 216 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 32 · on branch 65 · tags in window 97 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 31
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.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 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 to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 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 | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 17 records name iTop with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2011-4275, CVE-2013-0805, CVE-2015-6544, …) |
| 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 XHNE-CPQ1-V23G 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/XHNECPQ1V23G?via=badge)
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 — 7 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 | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 230.0authenticated: False |
| 33.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 65.2s | read the git history | commits: 16035tracked files: 11031 |
| 368.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 368.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 623.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 623.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 623.6s ·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).