0ab7848 · 50,000 commits · 19,363 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- names OpenSSF README.md:8
- 4 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| 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 | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 17% 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 ↑plugins/ingestion-hive/src/main/java/org/opensearch/plugin/hive/metastore/ThriftHiveMetastore.java is 8,687 lines, 84× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 103 lines. 101 files exceed 1,030 lines, the largest being 8,687. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | plugins/ingestion-hive/src/main/java/org/opensearch/plugin/hive/metastore/ThriftHiveMetastore.java:1 — 8,687 lines (84× median) |
| line-count | server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/index/shard/IndexShard.java:1 — 7,092 lines (68× median) |
| line-count | server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/search/aggregations/metrics/AbstractHyperLogLog.java:1 — 5,975 lines (58× median) |
| line-count | modules/lang-painless/src/main/java/org/opensearch/painless/antlr/PainlessParser.java:1 — 5,831 lines (56× median) |
| line-count | server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/repositories/blobstore/BlobStoreRepository.java:1 — 4,971 lines (48× 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 ↑7% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate151 of 2119 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 151 commits over 2,000 lines |
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 ↑87 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate87 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Mar 2021. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/common/settings/Setting.java | server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/common/settings/Setting.java — deprecated since Mar 2021 |
| server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/index/IndexModule.java | server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/index/IndexModule.java — deprecated since Aug 2021 |
| server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/index/engine/Engine.java | server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/index/engine/Engine.java — deprecated since Sep 2021 |
| server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/index/IndexSettings.java | server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/index/IndexSettings.java — deprecated since Sep 2021 |
| server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/common/joda/Joda.java | server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/common/joda/Joda.java — deprecated since Oct 2021 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, 3.9.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest pre-release on it is 3.0.0-alpha1. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 4ee42a94e | tag 3.9.0 |
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.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | distribution/docker/src/docker/Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate4 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.
| .github/workflows/gradle-check.yml | .github/workflows/gradle-check.yml:35 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/gradle-check.yml | .github/workflows/gradle-check.yml:48 — 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.
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.
3 shell commands built from strings
adequate3 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. 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.
| dev-tools/prepare_release_update_documentation.py | dev-tools/prepare_release_update_documentation.py:37 — command run through a shell |
| dev-tools/prepare_release_update_documentation.py | dev-tools/prepare_release_update_documentation.py:42 — command run through a shell |
| dev-tools/prepare_release_update_documentation.py | dev-tools/prepare_release_update_documentation.py:47 — command run through a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
11 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 6 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-22. 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 11 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 12 records name OpenSearch with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-23671, CVE-2026-107335, CVE-2026-111906, …).
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.
| GHSA-68xw-fqpj-h922 | 2026-10-22: GHSA-68xw-fqpj-h922 (moderate), fixed in 2.19.7: DoS in zstd decompression |
| CVE-2026-84942 | 2026-09-08: CVE-2026-84942 (moderate): Improper input validation in the Vega expression function implementation in OpenSearch Dashboards allows a remote authenticated actor with dashboard write permi |
| CVE-2026-77811 | 2026-08-21: CVE-2026-77811 (moderate): Improper input validation in the dashboards-observability plugin in OpenSearch Dashboards allows a remote authenticated user with write permissions to OpenSearc |
| CVE-2026-18420 | 2026-08-20: CVE-2026-18420 (high): Improper input validation in the Time Series Visual Builder (TSVB) plugin in OpenSearch Dashboards allows an authenticated remote user to execute arbitrary code |
| CVE-2026-18428 | 2026-08-13: CVE-2026-18428 (high): A SQL query validation bypass in the Flint extension query handler in the OpenSearch SQL plugin allows a remote authenticated actor with async query access to e |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing 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.
| logging-scan | searched 11,168 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.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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
5 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (plugins/arrow-flight-rpc/docs/architecture.md). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 1,711 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- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Java codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in server/, modules/, plugins/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (distribution/docker/docker-compose.yml and 5 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/opensearch-project/opensearch/0ab7848)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 — 59
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026)files 133,660 · top5 share 0.005 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 831 · per kloc 0.43 · lines read 1,948,946 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) · late delete per insert 0.46 · early delete per insert 0.621 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 558 · share 0.627 · with tests 350 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 7,129 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 280 |
| 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 54 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 1 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 3 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 11 · release commits 5 · changelog commits 245 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthswindow last 24 months · authors 1,711 · top share less than a quarter |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 309 |
| 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 26 · joined 69 · regular last year 101 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 27 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 24 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 4,806 · source 11,934 · test ratio 0.403 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026)sampled 45,710 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) · low content share 0.005 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 24 · with tests 4 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 3 · test files 6,173 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 24 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.007 · reverts 16 · recent commits 2,350 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 110 · days since lockfile changed 31 |
| 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 18 · ci configs 24 · product files 7,129 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition threshold, in the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026)gap seconds 180 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) · min add ratio 3.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) · length stdev 30.46 · repeat share 0.029 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0146 · product files 7,128 · distinct blocks 684,296 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,960,045 · files 18 · per kloc 0.02 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 2 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 11,168 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 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.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisoryadvisories 0 · dependencies 92 · high or critical 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 3 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 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 76 · added in two years 76 · removed within 60 days 5 |
| 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.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 29.0 · days since last tag 6 · commits last 90 days 306 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 33
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see, in the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for Java: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (20 Nov 2014 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 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.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 12 records name OpenSearch with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-23671, CVE-2026-107335, CVE-2026-111906, …) |
| 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 QVF4-J7E0-1XVF 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/QVF4J7E01XVF?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: 612.9authenticated: False |
| 60.4s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 130.8s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 19363 |
| 595.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 595.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 926.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 926.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 926.6s ·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).