1211461 · 16,505 commits · 10,814 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Reads strong: 4 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 1 is adequate and none is significant.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture is adequate. 9 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
[](https://borehole.dev/verify/CQ0WJF0EV2AG?via=badge)- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: grpc/grpc-idl .gitmodules:1
- 3 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 | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 29% 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 ↑web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/atoms/scatterMock.ts is 2,724 lines, 47× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 57 lines. 6 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 2,724. 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 | web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/atoms/scatterMock.ts:1 — 2,724 lines (47× median) |
| line-count | commons-profiler/src/main/java/com/navercorp/pinpoint/common/profiler/concurrent/jsr166/ConcurrentReferenceHashMap.java:1 — 1,743 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | commons-profiler/src/main/java/com/navercorp/pinpoint/common/profiler/concurrent/jsr166/ConcurrentWeakHashMap.java:1 — 1,455 lines (25× median) |
| line-count | agent-module/plugins/spring-data-r2dbc/src/main/java/com/navercorp/pinpoint/plugin/spring/r2dbc/SpringDataR2dbcPlugin.java:1 — 1,216 lines (21× median) |
| line-count | web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/AlarmV2/AlarmV2RuleForm.tsx:1 — 1,063 lines (18× 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 ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequate13 tests are individually marked to retry. A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| commons-hbase/src/test/java/com/navercorp/pinpoint/common/hbase/async/AsyncPollerThreadTest.java | commons-hbase/src/test/java/com/navercorp/pinpoint/common/hbase/async/AsyncPollerThreadTest.java:21 — test retry |
| commons-profiler/src/test/java/com/navercorp/pinpoint/common/profiler/name/Base64UtilsTest.java | commons-profiler/src/test/java/com/navercorp/pinpoint/common/profiler/name/Base64UtilsTest.java:32 — test retry |
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 ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v3.1.1, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v3.0.1. 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.
| 45b52cbf4 | tag v3.1.1 |
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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑None of the standard security guard rails are configured
adequateThere is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.
| guardrail-scan | checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 10,814 tracked files; 0 present |
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.
2 Dockerfiles run 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 | agent-module/agent/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | hbase/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
adequate9 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/create-dockerfiles.yml | .github/workflows/create-dockerfiles.yml:53 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/create-dockerfiles.yml | .github/workflows/create-dockerfiles.yml:56 — 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.
14 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 22 high or critical
adequate14 of 1,099 locked dependencies match 32 published advisories in OSV, 22 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.
| web-frontend/src/main/v3/yarn.lock | web-frontend/src/main/v3/yarn.lock — handlebars 4.7.9: GHSA-8r5x-fm3f-whwj (critical), fixed in 4.7.10 |
| web-frontend/src/main/v3/yarn.lock | web-frontend/src/main/v3/yarn.lock — shell-quote 1.10.0: GHSA-pqg4-j6r4-53mv (critical), fixed in 1.11.0 |
| web-frontend/src/main/v3/yarn.lock | web-frontend/src/main/v3/yarn.lock — storybook 10.6.0: GHSA-f2ph-cmg5-wxc8 (critical), fixed in 10.6.2 |
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.
4 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate4 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/HighLightCode/HighLightCode.tsx | web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/HighLightCode/HighLightCode.tsx:75 — HTML from a variable |
| web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/HighLightCode/HighLightCode.tsx | web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/HighLightCode/HighLightCode.tsx:88 — HTML from a variable |
| web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/Transaction/transaction-info/TransactionInfoFetcher.tsx | web-frontend/src/main/v3/packages/ui/src/components/Transaction/transaction-info/TransactionInfoFetcher.tsx:152 — HTML from a variable |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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.
2 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-06-29. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 2 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 3.0.1. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 15 records name pinpoint with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2020-4708, CVE-2023-0220, CVE-2023-25062, …).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-57947 | 2026-06-29: CVE-2026-57947 (moderate): Pinpoint through 3.1.0 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in the webhook registration endpoint that allows authenticated users to register int |
| CVE-2026-57948 | 2026-06-29: CVE-2026-57948 (high): Pinpoint through version 3.1.0 contains an insecure session management vulnerability that allows attackers to access the pinpointJwt session cookie due to missi |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
4 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 7,969 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- 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 174 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- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverageNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Java codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in web/, agent-module/, web-frontend/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (agent-module/agent/Dockerfile and 2 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/pinpoint-apm/pinpoint/1211461)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 — 94 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 94 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 — 65
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 58,778 · top5 share 0.014 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 231 · per kloc 0.27 · lines read 840,409 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.393 · early test per code 0.109 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.841 · early delete per insert 0.714 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 188 · share 0.282 · with tests 53 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 10,234 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 14.3 · window last 24 months · authors 174 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 174 · active 12mo 19 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 174 · one off share 0.517 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 174 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 26 |
| 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 2 · joined 3 · regular last year 12 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 10 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,626 · source 9,336 · test ratio 0.281 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 69 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 14,650 · low content share 0.006 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 10 · with tests 3 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 72 · test files 2,794 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 10 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 1 · recent commits 2,355 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 41 · days since lockfile changed 9 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 8 · ci configs 10 · product files 6,710 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.022 · commits 2,084 · over 2000 lines 46 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (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 81e5a82..c8bb62b · bursts explained 4 · largest net added 61,075 |
| 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 28.72 · repeat share 0.268 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 5,643 · write once share 0.382 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0288 · product files 6,710 · distinct blocks 252,150 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 848,765 · files 68 · per kloc 0.13 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 4 |
| 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 10,234 |
| 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.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 8 |
| 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 217 · added in two years 13 · 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.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 126.0 · days since last tag 21 · commits last 90 days 443 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 29
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @pinpoint-fe/scatter-chart (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @pinpoint-fe/server-map (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 15 records name pinpoint with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2020-4708, CVE-2023-0220, CVE-2023-25062, …) |
| 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 CQ0W-JF0E-V2AG 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/CQ0WJF0EV2AG?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: 272.3authenticated: False |
| 21.2s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 44.8s | read the git history | commits: 16505tracked files: 10814 |
| 352.2s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 352.2s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 556.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 556.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 556.5s ·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).