ai.adeu/adeu
version 1.7.1
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/dealfluence/adeu
- transport stdio
- files read 10
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
46
1 vendored or minified path was excluded before scanning; machine-generated bundles are not the server's own code
100measured on 65% of this axis
not assessed
no lockfile in the fetched source; dependency versions are unresolved, so no vulnerability can be attributed
100measured on 75% of this axis
33measured on 80% of this axis
The evidence
Every deduction below names the artefact that produced it. Nothing on this page was executed: the source was read, never run, and no running server was contacted.
Code Safety
- src/desktop-auth.ts:20mcp-js-shell-exec-nonliteral (critical/medium)
A shell is spawned on a value that is not a string literal. child_process .exec and execSync run their argument through /bin/sh, so any caller-supplied component is shell syntax, not data.
function openBrowser(url: string) { if (platform() === "darwin") exec(`open "${url}"`); else if (platform() === "win32") exec(`start "" "${url}"`); else exec(`xdg-open "${url}"`); - src/desktop-auth.ts:20mcp-js-shell-exec-template-literal (critical/medium)
A shell command is built from a template literal with interpolation. Quoting inside a template does not escape shell metacharacters.
function openBrowser(url: string) { if (platform() === "darwin") exec(`open "${url}"`); else if (platform() === "win32") exec(`start "" "${url}"`); else exec(`xdg-open "${url}"`); - src/desktop-auth.ts:21mcp-js-shell-exec-nonliteral (critical/medium)
A shell is spawned on a value that is not a string literal. child_process .exec and execSync run their argument through /bin/sh, so any caller-supplied component is shell syntax, not data.
function openBrowser(url: string) { if (platform() === "darwin") exec(`open "${url}"`); else if (platform() === "win32") exec(`start "" "${url}"`); else exec(`xdg-open "${url}"`); } - src/desktop-auth.ts:21mcp-js-shell-exec-template-literal (critical/medium)
A shell command is built from a template literal with interpolation. Quoting inside a template does not escape shell metacharacters.
function openBrowser(url: string) { if (platform() === "darwin") exec(`open "${url}"`); else if (platform() === "win32") exec(`start "" "${url}"`); else exec(`xdg-open "${url}"`); } - src/desktop-auth.ts:22mcp-js-shell-exec-nonliteral (critical/medium)
A shell is spawned on a value that is not a string literal. child_process .exec and execSync run their argument through /bin/sh, so any caller-supplied component is shell syntax, not data.
if (platform() === "darwin") exec(`open "${url}"`); else if (platform() === "win32") exec(`start "" "${url}"`); else exec(`xdg-open "${url}"`); } - src/desktop-auth.ts:22mcp-js-shell-exec-template-literal (critical/medium)
A shell command is built from a template literal with interpolation. Quoting inside a template does not escape shell metacharacters.
if (platform() === "darwin") exec(`open "${url}"`); else if (platform() === "win32") exec(`start "" "${url}"`); else exec(`xdg-open "${url}"`); }
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
stdio transport: the client launches the server as a subprocess, so the OS process boundary is the auth boundary — `03` §4 does not penalise absent auth here
- transport_security
declared transport: stdio — launched as a subprocess by the client, so the security boundary is the client process, not a network port (`03` §4)
- secret_handling
detect-secrets matched 1 credential-shaped string(s), every one from a keyword or entropy heuristic (Secret Keyword). Those flag placeholders, variable names and content hashes as readily as credentials, so they do not establish the committed credential `03` §4's 0 asserts, and this sub-check is not scored; Secret Keyword at src/mcp.cloud.test.ts:99
- authorization_granularity
9 tool registrations and no conditional access logic found — `03` §4 calls this case 'needs human review' and assigns it no score band, so it is not scored here
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 2 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
median over 17 issue(s) in the last 6 months: 0.5 day(s) to first maintainer comment
- release_cadence
released 11 day(s) ago (by releases), inside `03` §5's 30-day window
- bus_factor
this repository's 12-month history is longer than the bounded walk `04` §7 performs, and the authors found so far span more than one of `03` §5's bands. A limit of ours, not a finding about the server.
- repository_signals
`03` §5 scores this by quartile WITHIN the server's category, which needs a distribution across every scanned server and so cannot be computed while scanning one. It is a post-pass over the crawl and that pass does not exist yet.
Transparency
- license
package.json declares 'MIT' but no LICENSE file ships with the source
- readme_quality
README.md: configuration documented (+25), exposed tools or resources enumerated (+30), states what the server does in the first 200 words (+20)
- declared_scopes
specific scope or access documentation is present, but `03` §7's 100 and 60 bands both compare it against scopes INFERRED from static analysis, which is not built yet. Scoring 100 on an empty inference would be a vacuous truth — 'all ∅ inferred scopes are documented'.
- changelog
no CHANGELOG in the fetched source. `03` §7's partial credit for tagged releases carrying release notes is not applied here — that needs the forge API, which this check does not call
- security_contact
no SECURITY.md and no disclosure contact in the README, so a finder has no route to report a vulnerability privately
Contest a finding
Every number here comes from a rule reading published source, and rules get things wrong. If something on this page is incorrect — or correct but mitigated by a check the rule cannot see — open an issue and we answer it in writing. A finding we got wrong is removed and the rule is fixed; one that stands is answered on the record.
Anyone can file: the maintainer, a researcher who disagrees with the classification, or a user who tested the server and could not reproduce it. Name this server and the rule or advisory ID shown beside the finding above. We aim to reply within five business days and to resolve within ten.