Public report — Sa-Token, published 6 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
123findings with an exact file:lineof 131 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
39/106dimensions across the health lenses68487 LoC — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
dromara/Sa-Token carries serious gaps (26%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (14%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Security (25%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: 2 Leaked secret finding(s) (Secret Scanning); CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); Run what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling).
For scale: Medium (~68,487 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.5 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
0.7× (at 26% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€68,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 14% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with SsoRequestUtil.java, SecureController.java.
Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.5 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 14%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with SsoRequestUtil.java, SecureController.java. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with SsoRequestUtil.java, SecureController.java.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
218 modules, 420 dependencies — 5 dependency cycles, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
At a glance — Code Health · 59% · Adequate · gated by R1
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A03:2021 — Injection
50
High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
50
High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures
12
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by resolving the two leaked secrets in SsoRequestUtil.java and SecureController.java. Next, establish a CI workflow to build the project and run the test suite on every push or pull request. Integrate security scanning tools, such as spotbugs or semgrep, into this new pipeline to fail the build on security regressions. Finally, increase test coverage by adding tests for unreached modules and configure a test runner and type checker as package scripts to be executed in CI.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with SsoRequestUtil.java, SecureController.java.
Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Add a test runner (vitest / jest / playwright) and type checking (adopt TypeScript, or type-check the existing JavaScript with `checkJs`) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 37 of 39 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 39 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 123 of 131 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with SsoRequestUtil.java, SecureController.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Secret Scanning in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
40 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/stp/StpUtil.java.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
10 finding(s): 0 critical, 10 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
Secret: generic-api-key · ×9sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso-for-solon/sa-token-demo-sso-server-solon/src/main/resources/app.yml:37detected by gitleaks finding
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed
What to do
Resolve the 9 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with app.yml (4), application.yml (4), is-star-plugin.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
High: object-deserialization · ×4sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/serializer/impl/SaSerializerTemplateForJdk.java:72detected by semgrep finding
Medium: use-of-md5 · ×46sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/secure/SaSecureUtil.java:69detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 46 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with SaCheckELController.java (11), SafeAuthController.java (6), SaSecureUtil.java (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (46 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with SaJdkSerializer.java (2), SaSerializerTemplateForJdk.java, SaCheckELAspect.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
20 of 249 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/secure/BCrypt.java.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — read natively from whatever lockfile the repository ships (Cargo, npm, Go, Python, Maven, RubyGems, …). D33 and D30 add ecosystem-specific scanners on top for npm and .NET.
Method: Multi-ecosystem dependency-CVE scan via osv-scanner --recursive (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively across ecosystems: npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven/Gradle pom.xml/gradle.lockfile, PyPI requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock, Composer composer.lock, RubyGems Gemfile.lock, Hex mix.lock, pub pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable only when the repo declares no supported non-.NET dependency lockfile (a NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain); coverage needs a resolved lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×28sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.jsondetected by osv-scanner finding
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×4sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.jsondetected by osv-scanner finding
High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] · ×2sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.jsondetected by osv-scanner finding
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×15sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.jsondetected by osv-scanner finding
Medium vulnerability: [GHSA redacted]sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/package-lock.jsondetected by osv-scanner finding
What to do
Resolve the 28 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (28). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (28 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 Critical CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 High vulnerability finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d38_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.
AC1 · Text alternatives1.1 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. (×24) — doc.html:21, index.html:26, index.html:285, …
A <object> with no aria-label/title and no inner fallback content can't be described by assistive tech. Add a name or fallback content. — index.html:265
What to do
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC2 · Forms & labels5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.
This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. (×25) — index.html:22, index.html:58, device-lock-auth.html:16, …
What to do
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC3 · Page structure4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×13) — index.html:2, device-lock-auth.html:2, index.html:2, …
The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). (×10) — device-lock-auth.html:2, index.html:2, login.html:2, …
user-scalable=no/0 or a maximum-scale below 2 stops low-vision users zooming to 200%. Remove the zoom restriction from the viewport meta. (×2) — oauth2-authorize.html:6, sa-login.html:7
What to do
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler. — App.vue:17
An <a href="#"> (or javascript:) with a click handler is a button dressed as a link — it announces the wrong role and stops working without JS. Use a <button> for an action. (×10) — sso-index.vue:6, sso-index.vue:7, sso-index.vue:8, …
What to do
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
This stylesheet animates but never checks prefers-reduced-motion, so motion-sensitive users can't opt out. Wrap motion in @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference). — github-stars-vs.html:9
`.s-btn` sets color: #FFF on background-color: #409EFF — 2.8:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. (×5) — login.css:43, login.css:48, sso-auth.css:30, …
`.zz-btn-box button` sets color: #999 on background-color: #FFF — 2.8:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. — doc.css:515
`.btn-box .doc-btn` sets color: #fff on background-color: #42B983 — 2.5:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. — index.css:70
`section.cover .cover-main>p:last-child a:last-child` sets color: #fff on background-color: #42b983 — 2.5:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. This is a MINIFIED, build-generated sheet — editing the literal here is undone by the next vendor drop or rebuild, so override the rule in your own stylesheet (or fix it upstream / in the source the bundle is built from). — vue.css:1
What to do
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.
What to do
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-vuejs-accessibility, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 117 of 123 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.9 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build.
What to do
Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.
Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.
0 typed · 35 plain JS — the untyped files are sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-apikey/src/main/resources/static/common.js, sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-device-lock-h5/common.js, sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-server-h5/login.js, sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-remember-me/page_project/src/App.vue, sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-remember-me/page_project/src/main.js, sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso-for-solon/sa-token-demo-sso-server-solon/src/main/resources/WEB-INF/static/sa-res/login.js (+29 more).
What to do
Adopt TypeScript for the frontend: add a typecheck step to the build, then either type-check the existing JavaScript in place (`checkJs`/JSDoc types) or convert the highest-traffic modules first — no file is typed today, so this is an adoption, not a clean-up.
React / JS · Code Health — Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386).
Method: Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Deterministic.
sa-token-doc/a/star-guide/star-guide.js:20 · sa-token-doc/static/is-fill-in-wj-plugin.js:55 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — star-guide.js:20
sa-token-doc/static/custom-docsify-plugins/doc-lock-by-gzh-plugin.js:121 · sa-token-doc/static/custom-docsify-plugins/doc-lock-plugin.js:121 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — doc-lock-by-gzh-plugin.js:121
sa-token-doc/static/custom-docsify-plugins/doc-lock-by-gzh-plugin.js:323 · sa-token-doc/static/custom-docsify-plugins/doc-lock-plugin.js:327 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — doc-lock-by-gzh-plugin.js:323
sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-remember-me/page_project/src/App.vue:73 · sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-remember-me/page_project/src/App.vue:94 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — App.vue:73
sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/src/views/sso-common.js:9 · sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/src/views/sso-common.js:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — sso-common.js:9
sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-apikey/src/main/resources/static/common.js:5 · sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-device-lock-h5/common.js:5 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — common.js:5
sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-server-h5/login.js:131 · sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-server-h5/common.js:20 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — login.js:131
sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso-for-solon/sa-token-demo-sso-server-solon/src/main/resources/WEB-INF/static/sa-res/login.js:11 · sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-server/src/main/resources/static/sa-res/login.js:11 · sa-token-plugin/sa-token-quick-login/src/main/resources/static/sa-res/login.js:11 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — login.js:11
What to do
Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.
Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files6.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.
Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.
3 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: sa-token-doc/static/donate/donate-list.js (1606), sa-token-doc/static/custom-docsify-plugins/doc-lock-plugin.js (434), sa-token-doc/static/custom-docsify-plugins/doc-lock-by-gzh-plugin.js (430).
What to do
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R4 · Test Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.
Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.
0% of 34 production file(s) reachable from 0 test file(s) via the import graph
What to do
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).
Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D33). Deterministic.
What to do
Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling3.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.
Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.
test ✗ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗
What to do
Add a test runner (vitest / jest / playwright) and type checking (adopt TypeScript, or type-check the existing JavaScript with `checkJs`) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).
Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.
React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.
Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.
Declared in sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — dead weight and attack surface. Verify against build tooling before removing.
What to do
Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.
Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.
sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/src/router/index.js → sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/src/views/sso-index.vue → sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/src/router/index.js (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 3 files) — index.js
sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/src/router/index.js → sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/src/views/sso-index.vue → sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/src/router/index.js (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 3 files) — index.js
What to do
Break each cycle by extracting the shared piece into a module both sides can import.
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
Statically assessed 15 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (27%; ≈30% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 40 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 67 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~11356 lines of test source are present (.java) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Maven POM), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.java) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Maven POM — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .java, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.java) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (9 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
Issue — 50 finding(s)
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· High CVE · ×28
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— @babel/plugin-transform-modules-systemjs 7.22.5: [GHSA redacted] — @babel/plugin-transform-modules-systemjs is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin @babel/plugin-transform-modules-systemjs to 7.29.4 with an `overrides` entry).
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/package-lock.json— axios 1.1.3: [GHSA redacted] — this repo declares axios ^1.1.3, a range that ALREADY admits the fixed 1.16.0, so there is no manifest edit to make here. Re-resolve the lock so axios moves onto 1.16.0 or later; if the flagged 1.1.3 comes back, a dependency is pinning it — upgrade that dependent, or pin axios with an `overrides` entry so only one copy resolves. This is 1 of 29 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against axios 1.1.3, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.18.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.18.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 29 advisories this scan raises against axios 1.1.3: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— axios 1.4.0: [GHSA redacted] — this repo declares axios ^1.1.3, a range that ALREADY admits the fixed 1.16.0, so there is no manifest edit to make here. Re-resolve the lock so axios moves onto 1.16.0 or later; if the flagged 1.4.0 comes back, a dependency is pinning it — upgrade that dependent, or pin axios with an `overrides` entry so only one copy resolves. This is 1 of 30 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against axios 1.4.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.18.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.18.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 30 advisories this scan raises against axios 1.4.0: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— body-parser 1.20.1: [GHSA redacted] — body-parser is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin body-parser to 1.20.3 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against body-parser 1.20.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.20.6 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.20.6 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against body-parser 1.20.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— brace-expansion 1.1.11: [GHSA redacted] — brace-expansion is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin brace-expansion to 1.1.16 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 5 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against brace-expansion 1.1.11, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.1.18 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.1.18 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 5 advisories this scan raises against brace-expansion 1.1.11: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— braces 3.0.2: [GHSA redacted] — braces is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin braces to 3.0.3 with an `overrides` entry).
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— cross-spawn 5.1.0: [GHSA redacted] — cross-spawn is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (— 6.0.6 is a MAJOR ahead of the resolved 5.1.0, so an `overrides` pin would force a breaking version under a dependent written against 5.1.0; upgrading the declaring package is the remedy, and where no patched release exists in your major line, record the exposure instead).
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— cross-spawn 6.0.5: [GHSA redacted] — cross-spawn is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin cross-spawn to 6.0.6 with an `overrides` entry).
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— cross-spawn 7.0.3: [GHSA redacted] — cross-spawn is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin cross-spawn to 7.0.5 with an `overrides` entry).
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— flatted 3.2.7: [GHSA redacted] — flatted is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin flatted to 3.4.0 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against flatted 3.2.7, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.4.2 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.4.2 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against flatted 3.2.7: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— http-proxy-middleware 2.0.6: [GHSA redacted] — http-proxy-middleware is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin http-proxy-middleware to 2.0.7 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 4 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against http-proxy-middleware 2.0.6, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2.0.10 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2.0.10 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 4 advisories this scan raises against http-proxy-middleware 2.0.6: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— js-yaml 3.14.1: [GHSA redacted] — js-yaml is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin js-yaml to 3.15.0 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against js-yaml 3.14.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.15.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.15.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against js-yaml 3.14.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— launch-editor 2.6.0: [GHSA redacted] — launch-editor is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin launch-editor to 2.9.0 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against launch-editor 2.6.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2.14.1 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2.14.1 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against launch-editor 2.6.0: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— lodash 4.17.21: [GHSA redacted] — lodash is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin lodash to 4.18.0 with an `overrides` entry). This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against lodash 4.17.21: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— minimatch 3.1.2: [GHSA redacted] — minimatch is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin minimatch to 3.1.4 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against minimatch 3.1.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.1.4 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.1.4 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against minimatch 3.1.2: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— node-forge 1.3.1: [GHSA redacted] — node-forge is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin node-forge to 1.4.0 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 7 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against node-forge 1.3.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.4.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.4.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 7 advisories this scan raises against node-forge 1.3.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— path-to-regexp 0.1.7: [GHSA redacted] — path-to-regexp is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin path-to-regexp to 0.1.13 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against path-to-regexp 0.1.7, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 0.1.13 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 0.1.13 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against path-to-regexp 0.1.7: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— picomatch 2.3.1: [GHSA redacted] — picomatch is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin picomatch to 2.3.2 with an `overrides` entry). This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against picomatch 2.3.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— postcss 7.0.39: [GHSA redacted] — postcss is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (— 8.5.12 is a MAJOR ahead of the resolved 7.0.39, so an `overrides` pin would force a breaking version under a dependent written against 7.0.39; upgrading the declaring package is the remedy, and where no patched release exists in your major line, record the exposure instead). This is 1 of 5 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against postcss 7.0.39, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 8.5.23 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 8.5.23 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 5 advisories this scan raises against postcss 7.0.39: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/package-lock.json— postcss 8.4.18: [GHSA redacted] — postcss is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin postcss to 8.5.12 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 5 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against postcss 8.4.18, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 8.5.23 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 8.5.23 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 5 advisories this scan raises against postcss 8.4.18: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— postcss 8.4.24: [GHSA redacted] — postcss is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin postcss to 8.5.12 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 5 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against postcss 8.4.24, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 8.5.23 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 8.5.23 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 5 advisories this scan raises against postcss 8.4.24: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/package-lock.json— rollup 2.79.1: [GHSA redacted] — rollup is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin rollup to 2.79.2 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against rollup 2.79.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2.80.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2.80.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against rollup 2.79.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— semver 5.7.1: [GHSA redacted] — semver is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin semver to 5.7.2 with an `overrides` entry).
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— semver 6.3.0: [GHSA redacted] — semver is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin semver to 6.3.1 with an `overrides` entry).
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/package-lock.json— vite 3.2.7: [GHSA redacted] — this repo declares vite ^3.2.7, a range that ALREADY admits the fixed 3.2.8, so there is no manifest edit to make here. Re-resolve the lock so vite moves onto 3.2.8 or later; if the flagged 3.2.7 comes back, a dependency is pinning it — upgrade that dependent, or pin vite with an `overrides` entry so only one copy resolves. This is 1 of 17 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against vite 3.2.7, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.2.11 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.2.11 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 17 advisories this scan raises against vite 3.2.7: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High: object-deserialization sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/serializer/impl/SaSerializerTemplateForJdk.java:72— Found object deserialization using ObjectInputStream. Deserializing entire Java objects is dangerous because malicious actors can create Java object streams with unintended consequences. Ensure that the objects being deserialized are not user-controlled. If this must be done, consider using HMACs to sign the data stream to make sure it is not tampered with, or consider only transmitting object fields and populating a new object. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: spel-injection sa-token-plugin/sa-token-spring-el/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/aop/SaCheckELAspect.java:74— A Spring expression is built with a dynamic value. The source of the value(s) should be verified to avoid that unfiltered values fall into this risky code evaluation. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: object-deserialization sa-token-starter/sa-token-jboot-plugin/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/jboot/SaJdkSerializer.java:61— Found object deserialization using ObjectInputStream. Deserializing entire Java objects is dangerous because malicious actors can create Java object streams with unintended consequences. Ensure that the objects being deserialized are not user-controlled. If this must be done, consider using HMACs to sign the data stream to make sure it is not tampered with, or consider only transmitting object fields and populating a new object. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
High: object-deserialization sa-token-starter/sa-token-jfinal-plugin/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/jfinal/SaJdkSerializer.java:74— Found object deserialization using ObjectInputStream. Deserializing entire Java objects is dangerous because malicious actors can create Java object streams with unintended consequences. Ensure that the objects being deserialized are not user-controlled. If this must be done, consider using HMACs to sign the data stream to make sure it is not tampered with, or consider only transmitting object fields and populating a new object. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— @babel/traverse 7.22.5: [GHSA redacted] — @babel/traverse is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin @babel/traverse to 7.23.2 with an `overrides` entry).
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— form-data 4.0.0: [GHSA redacted] — form-data is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin form-data to 4.0.4 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against form-data 4.0.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 4.0.6 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 4.0.6 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 2 dependency files: sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json, sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/package-lock.json) This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against form-data 4.0.0: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— shell-quote 1.8.1: [GHSA redacted] — shell-quote is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin shell-quote to 1.8.4 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against shell-quote 1.8.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.9.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.9.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against shell-quote 1.8.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— websocket-driver 0.7.4: [GHSA redacted] — websocket-driver is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin websocket-driver to 0.7.5 with an `overrides` entry). This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against websocket-driver 0.7.4: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Leaked secret: high-entropy-secret sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso3-client-nosdk/src/main/java/com/pj/sso/SsoRequestUtil.java:41— high-entropy-secret detected. Treat the value as compromised: it is readable by everyone who has ever had the repository, and deleting the line does not un-publish it. In order — (1) REVOKE it at whatever issued it and issue a replacement, which is the only step that actually closes the exposure; (2) load the replacement at run time from your platform's secret store or the process environment instead of from the tree, so no future value is committable; (3) remove the file or line and add its path to the repository's ignore rules, so it cannot come back; (4) if the value was ever live, purge it from the history as well, since a clone taken before the deletion still carries it. If this is instead a FIXTURE — key material generated for tests and valid nowhere — then the exposure is nil and the fix is to make that legible: generate it in test setup, or keep it under a test-data path, so a reader (and this scan) can tell it from the real thing.
Leaked secret: high-entropy-secret sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/up/SecureController.java:57— high-entropy-secret detected. Treat the value as compromised: it is readable by everyone who has ever had the repository, and deleting the line does not un-publish it. In order — (1) REVOKE it at whatever issued it and issue a replacement, which is the only step that actually closes the exposure; (2) load the replacement at run time from your platform's secret store or the process environment instead of from the tree, so no future value is committable; (3) remove the file or line and add its path to the repository's ignore rules, so it cannot come back; (4) if the value was ever live, purge it from the history as well, since a clone taken before the deletion still carries it. If this is instead a FIXTURE — key material generated for tests and valid nowhere — then the exposure is nil and the fix is to make that legible: generate it in test setup, or keep it under a test-data path, so a reader (and this scan) can tell it from the real thing.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· High vulnerability · ×2
High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— serialize-javascript 6.0.1: [GHSA redacted] — serialize-javascript is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (— 7.0.3 is a MAJOR ahead of the resolved 6.0.1, so an `overrides` pin would force a breaking version under a dependent written against 6.0.1; upgrading the declaring package is the remedy, and where no patched release exists in your major line, record the exposure instead). This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against serialize-javascript 6.0.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— svgo 2.8.0: [GHSA redacted] — svgo is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin svgo to 2.8.3 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against svgo 2.8.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2.8.3 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2.8.3 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against svgo 2.8.0: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Orphaned knowledge sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/secure/BCrypt.java— No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
Medium: use-of-md5 sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/secure/SaSecureUtil.java:69— Detected MD5 hash algorithm which is considered insecure. MD5 is not collision resistant and is therefore not suitable as a cryptographic signature. Use HMAC instead. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: use-of-sha1 sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/secure/SaSecureUtil.java:94— Detected SHA1 hash algorithm which is considered insecure. SHA1 is not collision resistant and is therefore not suitable as a cryptographic signature. Instead, use PBKDF2 for password hashing or SHA256 or SHA512 for other hash function applications. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: use-of-aes-ecb sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/secure/SaSecureUtil.java:210— Use of AES with ECB mode detected. ECB doesn't provide message confidentiality and is not semantically secure so should not be used. Instead, use a strong, secure cipher: Cipher.getInstance("AES/CBC/PKCS7PADDING"). See https://owasp.org/www-community/Using_the_Java_Cryptographic_Extensions for more information. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: use-of-aes-ecb sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/secure/SaSecureUtil.java:228— Use of AES with ECB mode detected. ECB doesn't provide message confidentiality and is not semantically secure so should not be used. Instead, use a strong, secure cipher: Cipher.getInstance("AES/CBC/PKCS7PADDING"). See https://owasp.org/www-community/Using_the_Java_Cryptographic_Extensions for more information. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive pattern is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether the flagged value reaches a security decision — a credential, token, nonce, key, salt or session id, or an externally reachable surface — and apply the change where it does; where it provably does not (cosmetic, simulation, or deliberately reproducible use), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:22— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:29— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:36— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:43— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:50— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:57— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:64— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:71— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:78— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:88— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/more/SaCheckELController.java:96— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/plugin/TempTokenController.java:20— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/plugin/TempTokenController.java:28— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/plugin/TempTokenController.java:39— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/plugin/TempTokenController.java:50— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/up/DisableController.java:30— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/up/DisableController.java:40— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/up/DisableController.java:47— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/up/DisableController.java:59— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/up/HttpBasicController.java:27— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: unrestricted-request-mapping sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-case/src/main/java/com/pj/cases/up/MutexLoginController.java:49— Detected a method annotated with 'RequestMapping' that does not specify the HTTP method. CSRF protections are not enabled for GET, HEAD, TRACE, or OPTIONS, and by default all HTTP methods are allowed when the HTTP method is not explicitly specified. This means that a method that performs state changes could be vulnerable to CSRF attacks. To mitigate, add the 'method' field and specify the HTTP method (such as 'RequestMethod.POST'). This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
+ 21 more in this group — see findings.md.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium CVE · ×15
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— @babel/helpers 7.22.5: [GHSA redacted] — @babel/helpers is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin @babel/helpers to 7.26.10 with an `overrides` entry).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— @babel/runtime 7.22.5: [GHSA redacted] — @babel/runtime is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin @babel/runtime to 7.26.10 with an `overrides` entry).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— ajv 6.12.6: [GHSA redacted] — ajv is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin ajv to 6.14.0 with an `overrides` entry).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— ajv 8.12.0: [GHSA redacted] — ajv is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin ajv to 8.18.0 with an `overrides` entry).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— express 4.18.2: [GHSA redacted] — express is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin express to 4.19.2 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against express 4.18.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 4.20.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 4.20.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against express 4.18.2: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— follow-redirects 1.15.2: [GHSA redacted] — follow-redirects is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin follow-redirects to 1.15.6 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against follow-redirects 1.15.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.16.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.16.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 2 dependency files: sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json, sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/package-lock.json) This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against follow-redirects 1.15.2: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— joi 17.9.2: [GHSA redacted] — joi is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin joi to 17.13.4 with an `overrides` entry).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— micromatch 4.0.5: [GHSA redacted] — micromatch is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin micromatch to 4.0.8 with an `overrides` entry).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/package-lock.json— nanoid 3.3.4: [GHSA redacted] — nanoid is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin nanoid to 3.3.8 with an `overrides` entry).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— nanoid 3.3.6: [GHSA redacted] — nanoid is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin nanoid to 3.3.8 with an `overrides` entry).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— qs 6.11.0: [GHSA redacted] — qs is not declared by the manifests that govern this lockfile: it is pulled in transitively here (the ^6.11.0 this repo declares for it belongs to a separate install root and does not reach this one), so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin qs to 6.14.1 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against qs 6.11.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 6.14.2 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 6.14.2 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against qs 6.11.0: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— uuid 8.3.2: [GHSA redacted] — uuid is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (— 11.1.1 is a MAJOR ahead of the resolved 8.3.2, so an `overrides` pin would force a breaking version under a dependent written against 8.3.2; upgrading the declaring package is the remedy, and where no patched release exists in your major line, record the exposure instead).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— webpack 5.87.0: [GHSA redacted] — webpack is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin webpack to 5.94.0 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against webpack 5.87.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 5.104.1 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 5.104.1 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against webpack 5.87.0: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— webpack-dev-server 4.15.1: [GHSA redacted] — webpack-dev-server is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (— 5.2.1 is a MAJOR ahead of the resolved 4.15.1, so an `overrides` pin would force a breaking version under a dependent written against 4.15.1; upgrading the declaring package is the remedy, and where no patched release exists in your major line, record the exposure instead). This is 1 of 6 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against webpack-dev-server 4.15.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 5.2.6 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 5.2.6 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 6 advisories this scan raises against webpack-dev-server 4.15.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue2/package-lock.json— word-wrap 1.2.3: [GHSA redacted] — word-wrap is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin word-wrap to 1.2.4 with an `overrides` entry).
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/secure/SaSecureUtil.java:67— sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/secure/SaSecureUtil.java:67-73 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso3-client-nosdk/src/main/java/com/pj/sso/SsoSignUtil.java:69-75 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/secure/SaSecureUtil.java:67` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso-for-solon/sa-token-demo-sso-server-solon/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSsoServerApp.java:14— sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso-for-solon/sa-token-demo-sso-server-solon/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSsoServerApp.java:14-20 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-server/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSsoServerApplication.java:13-19 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso-for-solon/sa-token-demo-sso-server-solon/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSsoServerApp.java:14` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso3-client-nosdk/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSsoClientNoSdkApplication.java:12— sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso3-client-nosdk/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSsoClientNoSdkApplication.java:12-18 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso3-client-resdk/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSsoClientReSdkApplication.java:12-18 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
SoMap.getValueByClass (cyclomatic 16) sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/utils/SoMap.java:250— SoMap.getValueByClass has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
SoMap.getValueByClass (cognitive 16) sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/utils/SoMap.java:250— SoMap.getValueByClass has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, boolean chains 7. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium vulnerability · ×1
Medium vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso-client-vue3/package-lock.json— esbuild 0.15.12: [GHSA redacted] — esbuild is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin esbuild to 0.25.0 with an `overrides` entry).
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) sa-token-plugin/sa-token-oauth2/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/oauth2/processor/SaOAuth2ServerProcessor.java:131— sa-token-plugin/sa-token-oauth2/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/oauth2/processor/SaOAuth2ServerProcessor.java:131-143 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-server/src/main/java/com/pj/oauth2/h5/SaOAuth2ServerH5Controller.java:57-69 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-server/src/main/java/com/pj/mock/SaClientMockDao.java:28— sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-server/src/main/java/com/pj/mock/SaClientMockDao.java:28-39 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-server/src/main/java/com/pj/mock/SaClientMockDao.java:45-56 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-server/src/main/java/com/pj/mock/SaClientMockDao.java:28` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/oauth2/SaOAuthClientController.java:51— sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/oauth2/SaOAuthClientController.java:51-61 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/oauth2/SaOAuthClientController.java:105-115 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/oauth2/SaOAuthClientController.java:77— sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/oauth2/SaOAuthClientController.java:77-86 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/oauth2/SaOAuthClientController.java:130-139 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/oauth2/SaOAuthClientController.java:158-167 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/oauth2/SaOAuthClientController.java:77` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 7) sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso-for-solon/sa-token-demo-sso1-client-solon/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSso1ClientApp.java:20— sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso-for-solon/sa-token-demo-sso1-client-solon/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSso1ClientApp.java:20-26 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso-for-solon/sa-token-demo-sso2-client-solon/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSso2ClientApp.java:13-19 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso-for-solon/sa-token-demo-sso3-client-solon/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSso3ClientApp.java:13-19 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso1-client/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSso1ClientApplication.java:18-24 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSso2ClientApplication.java:13-19 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso3-client-anon/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSso3ClientAnonApplication.java:13-19 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-sso/sa-token-demo-sso3-client/src/main/java/com/pj/SaSso3ClientApplication.java:13-19 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 7 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 7 times.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/util/SaFoxUtil.java:356— sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/util/SaFoxUtil.java:356-360 | sa-token-demo/sa-token-demo-oauth2/sa-token-demo-oauth2-client/src/main/java/com/pj/utils/SoMap.java:253-257 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/util/SaFoxUtil.java:356` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Recommendation — 6 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not included · ×1
Test reliability not included — Test source is present (.java) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 38 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/stp/StpUtil.java, sa-token-plugin/sa-token-sso/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/sso/template/SaSsoServerTemplate.java, sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/util/SaFoxUtil.java, sa-token-plugin/sa-token-sso/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/sso/processor/SaSsoClientProcessor.java, sa-token-plugin/sa-token-oauth2/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/oauth2/config/SaOAuth2ServerConfig.java, sa-token-plugin/sa-token-oauth2/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/oauth2/processor/SaOAuth2ServerProcessor.java, sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/session/SaSession.java, sa-token-core/src/main/java/cn/dev33/satoken/plugin/SaTokenPluginHolder.java (+30 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D16 · Bus Factor· Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 2 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (40 single-owned of 247 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 100 lines or more, excluding tests, vendored, generated and example/demo trees, largest first). They are anonymized user #2 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #3 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above.
D28 · Secrets (history)· Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed — Some of these secrets are in git HISTORY: deleting the file does not remove them (the commit persists on every clone, fork and backup). The remediation is to ROTATE each historically-exposed credential and treat it as compromised — not to delete the file. Rewriting history is disruptive and unreliable across existing forks. (Working-tree-only secrets — no commit — can instead be removed from the file and moved to a secret store.)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
Further orphaned files (smaller) — 19 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than listed individually (20 orphaned of 249 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 100 lines or more, excluding tests, vendored, generated and example/demo trees, largest first).
Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector — Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.java) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored.
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· Dependency hygiene not measured · ×1
Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene — This repository's dependency manifest (a Maven POM) was found, but this pass cannot parse it for hygiene, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D38 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
0
—
Run 019fd75b-8965-7a90-8b43-78e565e6111b · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 50 · Warnings: 73 · Recommendations: 6 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 06-08-2026 @ 13:55 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.