Borehole · Risk register · free tier

graylog2/graylog2-server

Free reading: not for reliance

5eea81b · 29,949 commits · 13,321 files
Issued 2026-10-04

Reads strong. SSPL-1.0 with additional terms since 2020-11-16: source available, not open source; offering it as a service obliges publishing the whole service stack.

103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant. Security & Reliability Posture and Observability & Operations are adequate. 13 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.

[![Borehole reading, not a certification](https://borehole.dev/badge/graylog2/graylog2-server/5eea81b.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/7G4W2MNRJCF0?via=badge)

What matters most

05.60 SSPL-1.0 with additional terms since 2020-11-16: source available, not open source; offering it as a service obliges publishing the whole service stack

What the repository says about itself

04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
05.66 The licence is SSPL-1.0 with additional terms: source available, not open source LICENSE:1
05.60 Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → SSPL-1.0 with additional terms (2020-11-16) COPYING

What this survey read. This commit may not be the product users run: The newest release, 7.1.9, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 4.1.0. 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.
The file and line of 5 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.

	Dimension	Rating
01	Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance	strong
02	Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity	strong
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	strong
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	strong
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	adequate
07	Fit with the Acquirer	not assessable

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

3% of added lines arrived in commits declaring an AI agent as co-author

The surviving-lines measurement was not run on this repository.

27% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-10-01) arrived in AI-declared commits: 269/2,277 commits, confidence moderate. Also a floor.

272/28,295 commits declaring an agent · Claude, GitHub Copilot

confidence: moderate

22% 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

820,593 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 · strong · ratings ↑

A note that does not affect this rating

01.6

graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/plugin/journal/JournalMessages.java is 4,951 lines, 69× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 71 lines. 7 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,951. 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	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/plugin/journal/JournalMessages.java:1` — 4,951 lines (69× median)
line-count	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog/integrations/ipfix/IpfixJournal.java:1` — 2,356 lines (33× median)
line-count	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog/plugins/netflow/v9/NetFlowV9Journal.java:1` — 1,475 lines (20× median)
line-count	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/plugin/Message.java:1` — 1,271 lines (17× median)
line-count	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/shared/journal/LocalKafkaJournal.java:1` — 1,264 lines (17× median)

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

02 · strong · ratings ↑

No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · strong · ratings ↑

No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · strong · ratings ↑

Notes that do not affect this rating

04.38

80 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago

adequate

80 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Dec 2014. 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

graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/rest/resources/streams/rules/StreamRuleResource.java	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/rest/resources/streams/rules/StreamRuleResource.java` — deprecated since Dec 2014
graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/indexer/ranges/IndexRangeService.java	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/indexer/ranges/IndexRangeService.java` — deprecated since Jun 2015
graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/system/stats/elasticsearch/IndicesStats.java	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/system/stats/elasticsearch/IndicesStats.java` — deprecated since Dec 2015
graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/plugin/Version.java	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/plugin/Version.java` — deprecated since Jun 2016
graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/database/MongoConnection.java	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/database/MongoConnection.java` — deprecated since Jul 2016

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, 7.1.9, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 4.1.0. 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

002c04757

tag 7.1.9

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

7 credential-shaped strings 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

AWS access key	2 cited: AWS access key, where fakes are usual
private key block	3 cited: 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.

05.49

The production build publishes source maps

adequate

The build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.

Evidence

graylog2-web-interface/webpack.preflight.ts graylog2-web-interface/webpack.preflight.ts:59 — source maps in a production build

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

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

4 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.

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

Evidence

.github/workflows/changelog.yml	`.github/workflows/changelog.yml:17` — action pinned by tag
.github/workflows/no-response.yml	`.github/workflows/no-response.yml:16` — action pinned by tag

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.

05.26

6 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 3 high or critical

adequate

6 of 2,028 locked dependencies match 8 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. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.

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

Evidence

graylog2-web-interface/yarn.lock	`graylog2-web-interface/yarn.lock` — braces 3.0.3: GHSA-vfj7-8cjw-p6xm (high)
graylog2-web-interface/yarn.lock	`graylog2-web-interface/yarn.lock` — http-cache-semantics 4.1.1: GHSA-ch52-4w7c-c8xp (high)
graylog2-web-interface/yarn.lock	`graylog2-web-interface/yarn.lock` — probe-image-size 7.2.3: GHSA-gjj5-9665-rwrc (high), fixed in 7.4.0

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.

05.66

The licence is SSPL-1.0 with additional terms: source available, not open source

adequate

LICENSE grants SSPL-1.0 with additional terms: source available, not open source; offering it as a service obliges publishing the whole service stack. The reading comes from the licence's own title and clauses. Whether the terms fit the buyer's intended use, and whether any paid licence transfers with the code, is a question for counsel and the licensor.

A note that does not affect this rating: it names the project's licence, a fact for the first screen rather than a weakness.

Evidence

LICENSE LICENSE:1 — 557 lines, SSPL-1.0 AND LicenseRef-Terms-Additional

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.

05.60

Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → SSPL-1.0 with additional terms (2020-11-16)

adequate

The 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".

Evidence

64d4c0194	`COPYING` — GPL-3.0 from 2010-05-17
f35df42e1	`COPYING` — SSPL-1.0 with additional terms from 2020-11-16

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

12 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 6 high or critical

adequate

The 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 10 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 4.1.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-gqr6-r77p-c2pj (high) is fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries it cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run.

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

GHSA-vpqc-v737-94g9	2026-09-15: GHSA-vpqc-v737-94g9 (moderate), fixed in 7.0.13: Palo Alto Networks input parser can be exploited to consume excessive CPU and delay message processing
GHSA-xwgc-q8x5-538w	2026-09-14: GHSA-xwgc-q8x5-538w (high), fixed in 7.0.13: IPFIX input parser can be exploited to consume excessive CPU and block message processing
CVE-2026-65011	2026-07-22: CVE-2026-65011 (moderate): Graylog2 Server before commit 46a2eeb contains a missing per-entity permission check in the POST /events/definitions/{definitionId}/duplicate endpoint that allo
GHSA-m9c2-85gv-8xr5	2026-07-07: GHSA-m9c2-85gv-8xr5 (moderate), fixed in 6.3.14: Manager-to-Owner privilege escalation on saved searches and dashboards
GHSA-q79r-r9xg-r863	2026-07-03: GHSA-q79r-r9xg-r863 (moderate), fixed in 7.1.4: System Catalog titles endpoint can be used to retrieve values of protected database fields

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 ↑

06.2

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 12,881 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.

06.35

Sends usage data to telemetry.graylog.cloud by default

adequate

graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/configuration/TelemetryConfiguration.java sends to telemetry.graylog.cloud, and graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/configuration/TelemetryConfiguration.java leaves reporting on as shipped. Every installation reports to the vendor unless its operator turns this off. For a buyer running it inside their own product, that is an outbound data flow to a third party: ask what is sent, how often, and whether the buyer's customers were told.

Evidence

graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/configuration/TelemetryConfiguration.java	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/configuration/TelemetryConfiguration.java:42` — reports to telemetry.graylog.cloud
graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/configuration/TelemetryConfiguration.java	`graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/configuration/TelemetryConfiguration.java:37` — the reporting setting is on by default

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

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. 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 9,808 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

measured 173 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing? 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

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, with TypeScript alongside (41% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in graylog2-web-interface/, graylog2-server/, full-backend-tests/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (data-node/migration/docker-compose.yml and 1 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

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/graylog2/graylog2-server.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/graylog2/graylog2-server/5eea81b)

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 — 72

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 34,933 · top5 share 0.029
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 421 · per kloc 0.34 · lines read 1,237,899
04.dependency_sprawl	direct dependency counts are unremarkable
04.test_growth	test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.416 · early test per code 0.167
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.541 · early delete per insert 0.622
04.fixes_with_tests	fixes usually come with a testfixes 386 · share 0.495 · with tests 191
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 7,979 · compat files 10
04.dependency_redundancy	one library per job, mostly
06.telemetry_presence	a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 119
06.healthcheck_presence	a health or readiness check is defined
06.correlation_ids	a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 10
06.deployed_image_floats	every deployed image names a versionimages 4 · floating 0
06.environment_branching	environment differences live in configurationsites 0
06.release_markers	releases are markedtags last year 65 · release commits 1 · changelog commits 2
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.contributor_concentration	no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 16.4 · window last 24 months · authors 173
03.active_contributors	more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 173 · active 12mo 35
03.knowledge_silos	every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 173 · directories 9
03.drive_by_contributors	an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 173 · one off share 0.422
03.contributor_attrition	no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 173 · 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 39
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 1 · joined 4 · regular last year 28
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 155 · window last 24 months · with tracked 39
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 10
02.test_presence	tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,569 · source 10,548 · test ratio 0.244
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 536
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 28,295 · low content share 0.007
02.branch_protection_hints	process scaffolding is present in the repository
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 10 · with tests 1
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 52 · test files 3,395
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 10
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 7 · recent commits 2,570
02.dependency_update_cadence	dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 7 · days since lockfile changed 0
02.flaky_test_markers	tests are not retried until they passtest retries 1 · suite retries 0
02.lint_in_build	a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 10 · ci configs 10 · product files 7,979
02.long_lived_branches	the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.111 · merges 45 · long lived 5
02.commit_size	changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.025 · commits 2,344 · over 2000 lines 58
01.burst_import	the largest burst was data and assets (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits ce9d225..eed2fb8 · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 7,043
01.initial_dump	first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 1,698 · share of insertions 0.0004
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.46 · repeat share 0.071
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 7,997 · write once share 0.202
01.duplicated_blocks	little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0179 · product files 7,979 · distinct blocks 380,729
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,250,523 · files 16 · per kloc 0.01
01.unfinished_migration	no language migration is stalled halfway
01.weights_in_git	no model weights are committedfiles 0
05.security_guardrails	at least one standard guard rail is configured
05.dependency_pinning	a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True
05.license_present	a licence file is presentfound True
05.secrets_management_pattern	no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0
05.sql_from_strings	no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0
05.shell_from_strings	product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0
05.unsafe_deserialization	no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0
05.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.public_env_secret	only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0
05.unsafe_html	raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 1
05.signing_material	no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0
05.license_copyleft_inherited	the project is itself SSPL-1.0, so copyleft components carry no obligation it has not already acceptedown license SSPL-1.0 · copyleft components 1
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.flags_accumulating	flags are retired about as fast as they are addedlive 4 · retired 6 · flags seen 10
04.dependency_churn	few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 250 · added in two years 31 · removed within 60 days 1
04.ci_platforms_dropped	no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years
04.repository_status	the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0
02.development_elsewhere	nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0
05.paid_edition	no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0
04.releases_stopped	releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 5.0 · days since last tag 3 · commits last 90 days 632
03.single_maintainer	no file says one person maintains itstatements 0
05.project_exploited	no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 18

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
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.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 outside development, test and example paths
05.outbound_timeouts	not assessed for Java or TSX, the languages 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.cleartext_traffic	not a mobile app
05.dataset_provenance	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.license_manifest_conflict	no packaging manifest states a licence
04.api_versions_coexisting	one API version is served, or none
05.project_advisories	could not tell whether 15 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 4.1.0; 1 is fixed in the surveyed commit, and the release users run is not placed by this history

Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 7G4W-2MNR-JCF0 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/graylog2/graylog2-server/5eea81b.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/7G4W2MNRJCF0?via=badge)

This commit has been surveyed 5 times

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

4 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	15	significant findings

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
26.3s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Falseread working tree: False
26.3s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run

Total 26.3s ·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 0.7.13 DETERMINISTIC LAYER · NO MODEL CALLSREAD ON BOREHOLE'S SERVER · CLONE DELETED TAKEDOWNCONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPOSITORY? YOUR RIGHTS