Borehole · Risk register · free tier

dromara/jpom

Free reading: not for reliance

723b1cc · 6,090 commits · 1,114 files
Issued 2026-11-03

Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance. People was not rated.

100 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 5 raised something worth a question. 25 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 6 February 2026.

What the repository says about itself

The project does not take pull requests README-en.md:533
04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

What this survey read. This commit may not be the product users run: The newest release, v2.11.12, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2.7.3. Read this report as describing that commit, not the release users run. Survey the release branch or tag as well.

Published under today's rules. The verification code attests to this reading as it was stored. This page differs from it as follows.

3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
3 findings about one contributor are withheld: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits; a buyer of this report reads them.
The file and line of 3 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	adequate
02	Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity	adequate
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	not assessable
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	adequate
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	adequate
07	Fit with the Acquirer	not assessable

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

0% of the code standing today was written in AI-declared commits

0% of lines still in the tree 0 of 186,695 0% of lines ever added these differ when early hand-written code has since been replaced

0/5,489 commits declaring an agent

confidence: moderate

0% 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
deep scan blamed 1,087 of 1,087 counted files

70,587 lines excluded as lockfiles, vendored or generated.

This is a lower bound. It counts what the repository declares. Undeclared AI authorship is invisible here, and a single rebase removes the trailers this rests on. Absence of a declaration is absence of disclosure, not absence of AI authorship.

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

01 · adequate · ratings ↑

01.25

4 base images float: no version, or `latest`

adequate

4 of 8 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.

Evidence

modules/sub-plugin/docker-cli/src/main/resources/config_default/docker/runs/ubuntu-1ms-git/Dockerfile	`modules/sub-plugin/docker-cli/src/main/resources/config_default/docker/runs/ubuntu-1ms-git/Dockerfile:11` — base image without a version
modules/sub-plugin/docker-cli/src/main/resources/config_default/docker/runs/ubuntu-1ms-latest/Dockerfile	`modules/sub-plugin/docker-cli/src/main/resources/config_default/docker/runs/ubuntu-1ms-latest/Dockerfile:11` — base image without a version
modules/sub-plugin/docker-cli/src/main/resources/config_default/docker/runs/ubuntu-git/Dockerfile	`modules/sub-plugin/docker-cli/src/main/resources/config_default/docker/runs/ubuntu-git/Dockerfile:11` — base 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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

01.3

Commit messages are templated rather than written

adequate

33% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 14.7 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

commit-subjects	441× 'fix'
commit-subjects	106× 'update'
commit-subjects	42× '⏸ segment(all): pre i18n'

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.

01.6

web-vue/src/pages/dispatch/list.vue is 1,716 lines, 16× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 101 lines. 12 files exceed 1,010 lines, the largest being 1,716. 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.

Evidence

line-count	`web-vue/src/pages/dispatch/list.vue:1` — 1,716 lines (16× median)
line-count	`web-vue/src/pages/node/search.vue:1` — 1,428 lines (14× median)
line-count	`web-vue/src/pages/node/node-layout/project/project-file.vue:1` — 1,321 lines (13× median)
line-count	`web-vue/src/pages/ssh/ssh-file.vue:1` — 1,282 lines (12× median)
line-count	`web-vue/src/pages/node/list.vue:1` — 1,201 lines (11× 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.

01.7

3% of code blocks appear verbatim in more than one file

adequate

2,393 distinct 8-line blocks appear in two or more files. Copy-paste is the cheapest thing a generator does and among the more expensive things to inherit: a fix has to be applied everywhere the block landed, and nothing in the repository records where that is. Tests, fixtures and documentation examples are excluded — those repeat by design — so this is duplication in code that ships. Blocks are matched after normalising whitespace and only across different files.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

duplicated-block	identical 8-line block in 28 files: web-vue/src/components/codeEditor/index.vue, web-vue/src/pages/dispatch/list.vue, web-vue/src/pages/docker/list.vue
duplicated-block	identical 8-line block in 28 files: web-vue/src/components/codeEditor/index.vue, web-vue/src/pages/dispatch/list.vue, web-vue/src/pages/docker/list.vue
duplicated-block	identical 8-line block in 28 files: web-vue/src/components/codeEditor/index.vue, web-vue/src/pages/dispatch/list.vue, web-vue/src/pages/docker/list.vue
duplicated-block	identical 8-line block in 27 files: web-vue/src/components/codeEditor/index.vue, web-vue/src/pages/dispatch/list.vue, web-vue/src/pages/docker/list.vue
duplicated-block	identical 8-line block in 17 files: web-vue/src/pages/docker/swarm/node.vue, web-vue/src/pages/docker/swarm/task.vue, web-vue/src/pages/file-manager/release-task/list.vue

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.

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

02 · adequate · ratings ↑

02.5

40% of commit subjects say nothing about the change

adequate

2,218 of 5,489 subjects are either under twelve characters or one of the standard placeholders — wip, fix, update. The history is therefore not usable for reconstructing why a decision was taken, which is the main thing an inheriting engineer needs it for. It says nothing about code quality and a great deal about how much context transfers with the asset.

Evidence

commit-subject-content	2,218/5,489 low-content subjects (40.4%)
example	'git'
example	'git'
example	'启动'
example	'项目基本结构'

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.

A note that does not affect this rating

02.6

Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository

adequate

Of five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

process-scaffolding

1 of 5 markers present across 1,114 tracked 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.

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. The findings below are what it could still read.

03.27

Regular contributors fell from 6 to 1 in a year

adequate

4 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 0 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.

Evidence

regular contributors by year

6 then 1; 4 stopped committing, 0 began

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.

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · adequate · ratings ↑

04.19

10% of bug fixes add or change a test

adequate

Of 264 fixes in the last 24 months, 27 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.

Evidence

fix commits touching tests

27 of 264

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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

04.5

Effort is shifting from building to rewriting

adequate

Deleted lines per line added rose from 0.57 to 0.83 between the first and second halves of this history. Rework is normal and often healthy, but a rising ratio means an increasing share of the team's time is spent replacing code that already exists rather than building what does not. Whether that is deliberate repayment or churn is a question for the team.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

deletions-per-insertion

first half 0.57, second half 0.83 (split 2021-11-25)

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.

04.38

5 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago

adequate

5 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Mar 2023. 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.

Evidence

modules/agent/src/main/java/io/jpom/JpomAgentApplication.java	`modules/agent/src/main/java/io/jpom/JpomAgentApplication.java` — deprecated since Mar 2023
modules/agent/src/main/java/io/jpom/system/AgentLogbackConfig.java	`modules/agent/src/main/java/io/jpom/system/AgentLogbackConfig.java` — deprecated since Mar 2023
modules/server/src/main/java/io/jpom/JpomServerApplication.java	`modules/server/src/main/java/io/jpom/JpomServerApplication.java` — deprecated since Mar 2023
modules/server/src/main/java/io/jpom/system/ServerLogbackConfig.java	`modules/server/src/main/java/io/jpom/system/ServerLogbackConfig.java` — deprecated since Mar 2023
web-vue/src/pages/docker/editContainer.vue	`web-vue/src/pages/docker/editContainer.vue` — deprecated since Apr 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.

04.62

Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

adequate

The newest release, v2.11.12, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2.7.3. 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.

Evidence

95c4bcc80

tag v2.11.12

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.

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

05.1

1 credential-shaped string in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings

adequate

Strings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key.

Evidence

GitHub token	GitHub 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.

05.6

6 Dockerfiles run the application as root

adequate

No USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.

Evidence

no-USER-instruction	`modules/agent/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`modules/server/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`modules/sub-plugin/docker-cli/src/main/resources/config_default/docker/runs/ubuntu-1ms-git/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`modules/sub-plugin/docker-cli/src/main/resources/config_default/docker/runs/ubuntu-1ms-latest/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.

05.10

Licence text does not match a standard licence

adequate

LICENSE exists but its text does not match any standard licence. A bespoke or hand-edited licence is not wrong, but it cannot be cleared by recognising its name: counsel has to read it, and until they do neither side knows precisely what rights transfer with the code.

Evidence

LICENSE LICENSE:1 — 127 lines, unrecognised

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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

05.3

44 dependencies float, and no lockfile is committed

adequate

Dependency versions are declared as ranges and no lockfile is committed, so a build today does not necessarily produce what a build last month produced. That matters twice over in a transaction: the thing being bought cannot be reproduced exactly, and a compromised upstream release arrives without anyone choosing to take it.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

unpinned	`web-vue/package.json:16` — ^7.0.1
unpinned	`web-vue/package.json:17` — ^6.2.2
unpinned	`web-vue/package.json:18` — ^4.1.2
unpinned	`web-vue/package.json:19` — ^1.6.8
unpinned	`web-vue/package.json:20` — ^1.5.1

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.

05.5

2 credential-shaped strings added in the history sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings

adequate

A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.

Evidence

history	2 cited: GitHub 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.

05.25

4 environment files are committed

adequate

.env, web-vue/.env, web-vue/.env.loc and more are 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.

Evidence

.env	`.env` — committed environment file
web-vue/.env	`web-vue/.env` — committed environment file
web-vue/.env.loc	`web-vue/.env.loc` — 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.

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

2 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.

Evidence

.github/workflows/codecov.yml	`.github/workflows/codecov.yml:23` — action pinned by tag
.github/workflows/update-jdk.yml	`.github/workflows/update-jdk.yml:41` — action pinned by tag
script/docker-tls.sh	`script/docker-tls.sh:16` — 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.

05.20

18 SQL statements built from strings

adequate

18 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

modules/server/src/main/java/org/dromara/jpom/controller/DataStatController.java	`modules/server/src/main/java/org/dromara/jpom/controller/DataStatController.java:148` — SQL built from a string
modules/server/src/main/java/org/dromara/jpom/controller/DataStatController.java	`modules/server/src/main/java/org/dromara/jpom/controller/DataStatController.java:159` — SQL built from a string
modules/server/src/main/java/org/dromara/jpom/controller/DataStatController.java	`modules/server/src/main/java/org/dromara/jpom/controller/DataStatController.java:164` — SQL built from a string

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.

05.48

6 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it

adequate

6 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

web-vue/src/components/logView/view-pre.vue	`web-vue/src/components/logView/view-pre.vue:16` — HTML from a variable
web-vue/src/components/upgrade/index.vue	`web-vue/src/components/upgrade/index.vue:120` — HTML from a variable
web-vue/src/pages/layout/default-index.vue	`web-vue/src/pages/layout/default-index.vue:45` — HTML from a variable

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.

05.65

5 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 4 high or critical

adequate

The newest was published on 2026-11-02. 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 5 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 2.7.3. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.

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.

Evidence

CVE-2026-120460	2026-11-02: CVE-2026-120460 (high): Jpom through 2.11.12 contains a cross-workspace authorization bypass vulnerability that allows authenticated users to manage other workspaces' Docker hosts by s
CVE-2026-120461	2026-11-02: CVE-2026-120461 (high): Jpom through 2.11.12 contains a cross-workspace authorization bypass in POST /node/ssh_command/batch that resolves command templates and SSH nodes by ID without
CVE-2026-120201	2026-10-31: CVE-2026-120201 (critical): Jpom 2.10.0 through 2.11.12 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to gain super-administrator access by injectin
CVE-2026-111605	2026-10-16: CVE-2026-111605 (high): Jpom through 2.11.12 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in SshFileController that allows authenticated workspace users to access SSH hosts belonging
CVE-2026-91993	2026-09-15: CVE-2026-91993 (moderate): Jpom through 2.11.12 fails to validate workspace ownership when resolving repositoryId on the /build/branch-list endpoint, allowing authenticated users to acces

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.

Observability & Operations

06 · adequate · ratings ↑

06.1

No telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere

adequate

None of 1,015 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.

Evidence

telemetry-scan

searched 1,015 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.

06.2

No structured logging library is in use

adequate

Nothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.

Evidence

logging-scan

searched 1,015 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 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.

06.8

One request cannot be followed through the logs

adequate

Nothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.

Evidence

request ids

no request id, correlation id or tracing found

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.

A note that does not affect this rating

06.9

No error reporter is wired in

adequate

Nothing 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.

Evidence

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.

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

12 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. See the tiers.

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 937 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product? Answer lives in: Your architects, with the product roadmap01.39
Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now? Answer lives in: The team's reasoning at the time01.40

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. Answer lives in: The code host's pull request data02.32
Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic? Answer lives in: The issue tracker: backlog, sprint history, estimate accuracy02.38
How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from? Answer lives in: Tickets, chat and postmortems02.37

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · partial coverage

Which of the people who wrote this are part of the transaction, and for how long after it? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage

measured 16 commits landed in the last year, against 657 the year before (-98%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three. Answer lives in: The team04.11
Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline? Answer lives in: The data room and the team's record of estimates04.32
Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

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? Answer lives in: The security owner05.43
What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence? Answer lives in: Audit reports; policy files in the tree are not evidence05.44

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? Answer lives in: The operations team06.19
measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire? Answer lives in: The alerting tool and the on-call rota06.10
Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? Answer lives in: Pager history and dashboard logs06.29
Are the service-level objectives actually met? Answer lives in: Production metrics06.30
Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off? Answer lives in: Pager exports and interviews06.31
What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there? Answer lives in: Cloud billing and capacity plans06.32

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · none coverage

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

This is primarily a Java codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in web-vue/, modules/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (docker-compose-cluster.yml and 14 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first? 07.2
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? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

Request a human assessment Download JSON Badge PDF Post on X

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.

[![Borehole](/badge/dromara/jpom.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/dromara/jpom/723b1cc)

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 — 75 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 75 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 — 49

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 6,346 · top5 share 0.043
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 8 · per kloc 0.04 · lines read 181,830
04.dependency_sprawl	direct dependency counts are unremarkable
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 755 · compat files 0
04.dependency_redundancy	one library per job, mostly
06.healthcheck_presence	a health or readiness check is defined
06.usage_reporting_default	the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0
06.deployed_image_floats	every deployed image names a versionimages 2 · floating 0
06.environment_branching	environment differences live in configurationsites 1
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.contributor_concentration	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
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 132 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 6
02.test_presence	tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 115 · source 844 · test ratio 0.136
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 145
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 120
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 6
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 673
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 6 · product files 755
02.long_lived_branches	the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.024 · merges 41 · long lived 1
02.commit_size	changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.031 · commits 645 · over 2000 lines 20
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 49 · share of insertions 0.0001
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 895 · write once share 0.082
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 182,826 · files 12 · per kloc 0.07
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.license_present	a licence file is presentfound True
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.source_maps_shipped	production builds do not publish source mapssites 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.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 92 · added in two years 7 · removed within 60 days 2
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
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 36.5 · days since last tag 546 · commits last 90 days 0
03.single_maintainer	withheld: this check's result would describe one person
05.project_exploited	no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 26

Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.

Signal	Why
04.eol_runtime	no pinned runtime version to check
04.fix_share_trend	fewer than six busy quarters to compare
04.schema_churn	no schema migrations to read
06.telemetry_depth	none at all is 06.1
06.print_logging	a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's
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.release_markers	fewer than 100 commits in the last year
06.feature_flags	no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
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.dependency_update_cadence	no lockfile to date
01.notebook_outputs	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.outbound_timeouts	not assessed for Java, 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.known_vulnerabilities	not assessed for Maven: this survey does not read their dependency files
05.public_env_secret	not assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
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	could not tell whether 5 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 2.7.3

Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 3SJQ-MPA6-8P9R 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.

[![Borehole reading, not a certification](https://borehole.dev/badge/dromara/jpom/723b1cc.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/3SJQMPA68P9R?via=badge)

Quoted evidence

9 pieces of evidence on this report quote the repository directly. Four checks quote text: up to five TODO-style comments, up to four commit subjects, up to five unpinned dependency lines and one status line from the README's first screen, such as “no longer maintained”. In each case the text is the evidence, which is why it is kept by default.

This rewrites every stored reading of this repository, and every later reading, including a re-read, is stored without the quoted text. The facts we keep to re-read it still hold the lines, as the privacy notice says. The pointers stay.

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: 94.6authenticated: False
7.7s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
12.0s	read the git history	commits: 6090tracked files: 1114
109.0s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Trueread working tree: False
109.1s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
136.8s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
136.8s	deleting the working copy

Total 136.8s ·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).

BOREHOLE 0.7.15 DETERMINISTIC LAYER · NO MODEL CALLSREAD ON BOREHOLE'S SERVER · CLONE DELETED TAKEDOWNCONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPOSITORY? YOUR RIGHTS