Borehole · Risk register · free tier
orientechnologies/orientdb
Free reading: not for reliance
Borehole badge for orientechnologies/orientdb
861fdd0 · 27,290 commits · 5,071 files
Issued 2026-11-03

Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.

100 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 16 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

What the repository says about itself
  • 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
  • 05.60 Relicensed: Apache-2.0 → CDDL-1.0 (2014-06-24) → Apache-2.0 (2018-06-07) license.txt
What this survey read. This commit may not be the product users run: The newest release, 3.2.57, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 3.2.27. 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.
  • 5 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
  • 1 finding about one contributor is withheld: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits; a buyer of this report reads them.
  • The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository
Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating
0% of added lines arrived in commits declaring an AI agent as co-author
The surviving-lines measurement was not run on this repository.
0% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-11-03) arrived in AI-declared commits: 0/829 commits, confidence low. Also a floor.
0/24,439 commits declaring an agent
confidence: moderate
  • 4% 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
114,681 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 ↑
Notes that do not affect this rating
01.6

core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/storage/impl/local/OAbstractPaginatedStorage.java is 6,452 lines, 86× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 75 lines. 63 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 6,452. 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.

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.

01.33

A move from JavaScript to TypeScript began 118 months ago and is 75% done

adequate

141 product files are in the new language and 47 are still in the old one, 118 months after the first new file appeared. The new language's share of the lines rose from 7% to 74%, and moved 0 percentage points in the last year. Two languages for one job doubles what an engineer has to know, and the unmoved half is usually what nobody wants to touch. Ask whether finishing it is planned, and what it costs.

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

Evidence
file counts 47 old, 141 new
Respond to this finding

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

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

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

02 · adequate · ratings ↑
02.15

167 tests are switched off

adequate

167 skip markers across 122 of 1524 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.

Evidence
agent/src/test/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/storage/impl/local/paginated/StorageBackupTestWithLuceneIndex.java agent/src/test/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/storage/impl/local/paginated/StorageBackupTestWithLuceneIndex.java:95 — skipped test
agent/src/test/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/storage/impl/local/paginated/StorageBackupTestWithLuceneIndex.java agent/src/test/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/storage/impl/local/paginated/StorageBackupTestWithLuceneIndex.java:154 — skipped test
agent/src/test/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/server/distributed/ConnectionStrategiesEEIT.java agent/src/test/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/server/distributed/ConnectionStrategiesEEIT.java:53 — skipped test
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑

Not rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · strong · ratings ↑
Notes that do not affect this rating
04.5

Effort is shifting from building to rewriting

adequate

Deleted lines per line added rose from 0.75 to 1.04 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 0.75, second half 1.04 (split 2018-07-17)
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.

04.38

47 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago

adequate

47 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Oct 2016. 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
core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/metadata/sequence/OSequenceLibrary.java core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/metadata/sequence/OSequenceLibrary.java — deprecated since Oct 2016
core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/record/impl/ODocument.java core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/record/impl/ODocument.java — deprecated since Nov 2016
core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/index/OIndexManager.java core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/index/OIndexManager.java — deprecated since Jan 2017
core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/metadata/function/OFunctionLibrary.java core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/metadata/function/OFunctionLibrary.java — deprecated since Jan 2017
core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/metadata/security/OSecurity.java core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/metadata/security/OSecurity.java — deprecated since Jan 2017
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.

04.62

Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

adequate

The newest release, 3.2.57, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 3.2.27. 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
d24c15f5b tag 3.2.57
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 ↑
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
AWS access key AWS access key, where fakes are usual
File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
Respond to this finding

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

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

05.6

2 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 packages/community/docker/Dockerfile — runs as root
no-USER-instruction packages/tp3/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.

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
studio/webpack.config.js studio/webpack.config.js:107 — 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.

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
05.20

7 SQL statements built from strings

adequate

7 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 1 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. 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
etl/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/etl/transformer/OETLAbstractLookupTransformer.java etl/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/etl/transformer/OETLAbstractLookupTransformer.java:71 — SQL built from a string
core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/metadata/security/OSecurityShared.java core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/metadata/security/OSecurityShared.java:560 — SQL built from a string
studio/src/controllers/document-controller.js studio/src/controllers/document-controller.js:459 — 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.

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.

05.22

6 deserialisers that can run code

adequate

6 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (Java object streams). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.

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

Evidence
client/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/client/remote/ORemoteClient.java client/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/client/remote/ORemoteClient.java:2088 — code-executing deserialiser
core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/serialization/OStreamableHelper.java core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/serialization/OStreamableHelper.java:124 — code-executing deserialiser
core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/serialization/OStreamableHelper.java core/src/main/java/com/orientechnologies/orient/core/serialization/OStreamableHelper.java:132 — code-executing deserialiser
Respond to this finding

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

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

05.26

46 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 56 high or critical

adequate

46 of 1,055 locked dependencies match 118 published advisories in OSV, 56 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
studio/yarn.lock studio/yarn.lock — babel-traverse 6.26.0: GHSA-67hx-6x53-jw92 (critical)
studio/yarn.lock studio/yarn.lock — loader-utils 0.2.16: GHSA-76p3-8jx3-jpfq (critical), fixed in 2.0.3
studio/yarn.lock studio/yarn.lock — loader-utils 1.1.0: GHSA-76p3-8jx3-jpfq (critical), fixed in 1.4.1
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.

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.

05.9

2 vendored components with no licence

adequate

Third-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.

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

Evidence
studio/src/vendor/jquery-cron-min.js studio/src/vendor/jquery-cron-min.js — 1 tracked files, no licence file
studio/src/vendor/moment-jdateformatparser.js studio/src/vendor/moment-jdateformatparser.js — 1 tracked files, no licence file
Respond to this finding

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

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

05.60

Relicensed: Apache-2.0 → CDDL-1.0 (2014-06-24) → Apache-2.0 (2018-06-07)

adequate

The root licence changed 2 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.

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
b80101345 license.txt — Apache-2.0 from 2010-04-07
c08ffc528 license.txt — CDDL-1.0 from 2014-06-24
97bf59a38 license.txt — Apache-2.0 from 2018-06-07
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 ↑
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 4,798 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.

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.

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

9 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
  1. measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 3,434 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
  2. Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product? Answer lives in: Your architects, with the product roadmap01.39
  3. 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
  1. 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
  2. Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic? Answer lives in: The issue tracker: backlog, sprint history, estimate accuracy02.38
  3. How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from? Answer lives in: Tickets, chat and postmortems02.37

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · partial coverage

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.

  1. 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
  2. Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
  3. Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
  4. Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
  5. Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
  6. Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
  7. How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage
  1. measured 655 commits landed in the last year, against 430 the year before (+52%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before? Answer lives in: The team04.11
  2. 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
  3. Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
  4. Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · partial coverage
  1. 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
  2. What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
  3. What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
  4. 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
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? Answer lives in: Pager history and dashboard logs06.29
  4. Are the service-level objectives actually met? Answer lives in: Production metrics06.30
  5. Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off? Answer lives in: Pager exports and interviews06.31
  6. 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.

  1. This is primarily a Java codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
  2. The bulk of this system sits in core/, server/, studio/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
  3. The repository carries deployment configuration (packages/community/docker/Dockerfile and 1 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first? 07.2
  4. 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?
  5. Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
  6. What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
  7. Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
  8. Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
  9. Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

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 for orientechnologies/orientdb
[![Borehole](/badge/orientechnologies/orientdb.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/orientechnologies/orientdb/861fdd0)

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.

Was this reading useful?
Rejection log — 84 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 84 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 — 60

SignalWhat it found
04.hotspot_concentration change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 18,030 · top5 share 0.029
04.debt_markers debt markers are sparsemarkers 387 · per kloc 0.52 · lines read 744,705
04.dependency_sprawl direct dependency counts are unremarkable
04.test_growth test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.391 · early test per code 0.189
04.fixes_with_tests fixes usually come with a testfixes 382 · share 0.351 · with tests 134
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 2,947 · compat files 4
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 4
06.healthcheck_presence a health or readiness check is defined
06.correlation_ids a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 35
06.usage_reporting_default the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0
06.environment_branching environment differences live in configurationsites 1
06.release_markers releases are markedtags last year 12 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 0
06.migrate_on_start migrations do not run at container start
03.active_contributors withheld: this check's result would describe one person
03.drive_by_contributors withheld: this check's result would describe one person
03.contributor_attrition withheld: this check's result would describe one person
03.critical_path_ownership withheld: this check's result would describe one person
03.second_contributor_attrition withheld: this check's result would describe one person
03.bus_factor_trend withheld: this check's result would describe one person
02.merge_discipline a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 40 · window last 24 months · with tracked 3
02.ci_presence CI configuration is present in the working treecount 4
02.test_presence tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,359 · source 4,303 · test ratio 0.316
02.release_cadence tags are presenttags 249
02.conventional_commits commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 24,430 · low content share 0.014
02.branch_protection_hints process scaffolding is present in the repository
02.ci_test_gating no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 4
02.revert_share change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 2 · recent commits 1,085
02.dependency_update_cadence dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 2 · days since lockfile changed 0
02.flaky_test_markers tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0
02.lint_in_build a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 1 · ci configs 4 · product files 2,947
02.long_lived_branches the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.0 · merges 40 · long lived 0
02.commit_size changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.017 · commits 1,045 · over 2000 lines 18
01.initial_dump first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 0 · share of insertions 0.0
01.message_uniformity commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 32.89 · repeat share 0.169
01.revision_depth most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,810 · write once share 0.129
01.swallowed_errors errors are rarely thrown awayloc 749,377 · files 54 · per kloc 0.12
01.build_reproducibility every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 2
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.supply_chain_pinning third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 16 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0
05.shell_from_strings product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0
05.tls_verification_off no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0
05.privileged_workloads no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0
05.credentials_in_deploy_config deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0
05.signing_material no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0
05.license_copyleft_inherited every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 9
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 87 · added in two years 0 · removed within 60 days 0
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 29.5 · days since last tag 29 · commits last 90 days 194
03.single_maintainer withheld: this check's result would describe one person

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 24

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

SignalWhy
04.eol_runtimeno pinned runtime version to check
04.schema_churnno schema migrations to read
06.telemetry_depthnone at all is 06.1
06.print_logginga frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's
06.alert_rulesno alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console
06.deployed_image_floatsno deployment descriptor names an image
06.probes_identicalno Kubernetes probes
06.single_replicano Kubernetes deployments
06.feature_flagsno feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
03.joiners_and_leaverswithheld: this check's result would describe one person
01.notebook_outputsnot a data or machine-learning repository
05.outbound_timeoutsnot assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.migration_reversibilitytoo few migrations to judge
05.resource_limitsno Kubernetes workload manifests
05.public_env_secretnot assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.unsafe_htmlnot assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.cleartext_trafficnot a mobile app
05.dataset_provenancenot a data or machine-learning repository
05.license_manifest_conflictno packaging manifest states a licence
04.flags_accumulatingfew or no feature flags in the history
04.api_versions_coexistingone API version is served, or none
05.project_advisoriesrecord incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 5 records name orientdb with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2015-2918, CVE-2019-25447, CVE-2019-25448, …)
05.advisory_recordrecord incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; NVD: 5 records name orientdb with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2015-2918, CVE-2019-25447, CVE-2019-25448, …)
05.project_exploitedno affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list
BOREHOLE READING NOT A CERTIFICATION 99JM-7MFG-NGT1 2026-11-03 · 861FDD0 BOREHOLE.DEV/VERIFY

Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 99JM-7MFG-NGT1 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/orientechnologies/orientdb/861fdd0.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/99JM7MFGNGT1?via=badge)

Borehole reading 99JM-7MFG-NGT1, not a certification

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.

AtStepDetail
0.0s read repository metadata from the GitHub API size mb: 292.2authenticated: False
26.0s cloned the repository to a temporary directory depth: full
52.7s read the git history commits: 27290tracked files: 5071
321.9s ran the deterministic checks blame pass: Falseread working tree: False
321.9s recorded where this scan ran attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
471.4s kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
471.4s deleting the working copy

Total 471.4s ·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