bfab9f0 · 50,000 commits · 39,011 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 99 submodule(s) this survey does not read: contrib/zstd, contrib/lz4, contrib/cctz .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 | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 6% 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 ↑Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate37% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 22.2 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| commit-subjects | 402× 'fix' |
| commit-subjects | 225× 'Fix build' |
| commit-subjects | 209× 'Fix' |
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.
src/Parsers/New/ClickHouseParser.cpp is 20,193 lines, 480× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 42 lines. 161 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 20,193. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 97% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | src/Parsers/New/ClickHouseParser.cpp:1 — 20,193 lines (480× median) |
| line-count | base/poco/Foundation/src/pcre_jit_compile.c:1 — 11,913 lines (283× median) |
| line-count | base/poco/Foundation/src/pcre_compile.c:1 — 9,807 lines (233× median) |
| line-count | base/poco/XML/src/xmlparse.cpp:1 — 9,236 lines (219× median) |
| line-count | src/Storages/MergeTree/MergeTreeData.cpp:1 — 8,014 lines (190× 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
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (docker/test/stateless_pytest/Dockerfile). 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.
| docker/test/stateless_pytest/Dockerfile | docker/test/stateless_pytest/Dockerfile:34 — 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 · adequate · ratings ↑The bus factor fell from 4 to 1
adequateYear by year, newest first, the number of people who wrote half the changes was 1, 3, 4, 3. The team narrowed to one person, which is a different risk from one that always was: the code does not say why.
| bus factor by year | 1, 3, 4, 3 |
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.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑6 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 | docker/bare/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/builder/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/client/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/packager/binary/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
adequate5 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/compatibility_test.yml | .github/workflows/compatibility_test.yml:186 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/manual_trigger_build.yml | .github/workflows/manual_trigger_build.yml:497 — 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.
20 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-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.
| docs/en/interfaces/third-party/client-libraries.md | docs/en/interfaces/third-party/client-libraries.md — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| docs/en/interfaces/third-party/gui.md | docs/en/interfaces/third-party/gui.md — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| docs/en/interfaces/third-party/index.md | docs/en/interfaces/third-party/index.md — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| docs/en/interfaces/third-party/integrations.md | docs/en/interfaces/third-party/integrations.md — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| docs/en/interfaces/third-party/proxy.md | docs/en/interfaces/third-party/proxy.md — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| docs/ja/interfaces/third-party/client-libraries.md | docs/ja/interfaces/third-party/client-libraries.md — 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.
1 advisory against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-03-24. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 28 records name proton with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2016-2166, CVE-2016-4467, CVE-2018-17187, …).
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-2026-4746 | 2026-03-24: CVE-2026-4746 (critical): Out-of-bounds Write vulnerability in timeplus-io proton (base/poco/Foundation/src modules). This vulnerability is associated with program files inflate.C. Thi |
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 | C source is not searched: C programs log through printf-style calls unless they take a library, and none of the 10 searched for is referenced |
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.
2 of 2 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate2 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| docker/compose/docker-compose.yml | docker/compose/docker-compose.yml:5 — image without a version |
| docker/compose/docker-compose.yml | docker/compose/docker-compose.yml:34 — image without a version |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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
7 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 (docs/en/development/architecture.md and 4 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- 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 757 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- measured 265 commits landed in the last year, against 107 the year before (+148%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- measured A roadmap file is in the tree (docs/en/whats-new/roadmap.md, last changed October 2025). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- 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 C codebase, with C++ alongside (46% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run C in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, contrib/, programs/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 54% of lines added in the last 12 months (1% of lines added in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026)) came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker/bare/Dockerfile and 9 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/timeplus-io/proton/bfab9f0)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 — 53
| 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 (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026)files 69,523 · top5 share 0.012 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 1,741 · per kloc 0.82 · lines read 2,116,248 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) · late delete per insert 0.807 · early delete per insert 0.67 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 105 · share 0.486 · with tests 51 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 8,232 · 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 35 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 27 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 27 |
| 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 757 · top share a quarter or more |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 20 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 4 · joined 4 · regular last year 9 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 24 · window last 24 months · with tracked 2 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 13 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 12,319 · source 20,547 · test ratio 0.6 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026)sampled 37,571 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) · low content share 0.16 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 13 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 16 · test files 27,766 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 13 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.008 · reverts 3 · recent commits 372 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 65 · days since lockfile changed 134 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 3 · ci configs 13 · product files 8,232 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.045 · commits 333 · over 2000 lines 15 |
| 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 it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) · largest commits 0e235d3..2c8582a · bursts explained 1 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0145 · product files 7,844 · distinct blocks 818,336 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 8 |
| 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 17,962 |
| 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.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 20 |
| 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.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 2 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 98 · added in two years 4 · 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 15.0 · days since last tag 4 · commits last 90 days 39 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026)elsewhere 0 · on branch 32 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 39
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for C: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.correlation_ids | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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.environment_branching | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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 (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 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 (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Jan 2020 to 30 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no lockfile this survey can read, or a collector older than 0.4.0 |
| 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: 28 records name proton with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2016-2166, CVE-2016-4467, CVE-2018-17187, …) |
| 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 NESK-JC0S-CC3G 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/NESKJC0SCC3G?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: 586.2authenticated: False |
| 111.2s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 181.0s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 39011 |
| 621.5s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 621.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 900.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 900.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 900.0s ·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).