ai.bowmark/bowmark
version 8.178.1
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/bowmark-ai/skill
- transport streamable-http
- files read 2
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
100
89measured on 45% of this axis
34
88measured on 65% of this axis
17measured 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.
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
no authentication appears in the source we fetched, but this server's network endpoint is a hosted remote, whose authentication can be enforced in front of its code — and no credential header is declared. An undeclared header is not an absent one, so `03` §4's "no authentication" band is not established.
- transport_security
declared endpoint(s) are HTTPS: https://api.bowmark.ai/mcp/registry; scored 80, not 100: `03` §4 reserves 100 for HTTPS *with HSTS*, and an HSTS header can only be seen by connecting, which `04` §9 does not do. This is an unverifiable band, not an observed absence.
- secret_handling
credentials are read from the environment (BOWMARK_API_KEY) and documented in the README
- authorization_granularity
no tool registration was recognised anywhere in the source. An MCP server registers tools by definition, so this is a gap in our detection rather than a server with none, and `03` §4's threshold cannot be applied to it.
Dependency Health
- uv.lockanyio 4.14.1 — PYSEC-2026-4025
transitive, CVSS 9.3, fixed in 4.14.2
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4025 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4145
transitive, CVSS 9.1, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4145 - uv.lockmcp 1.28.1 — GHSA-84m7-p3x7-pcfv
direct, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 1.30.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-84m7-p3x7-pcfv - uv.lockcryptography 49.0.0 — PYSEC-2026-3552
transitive, CVSS 8.2, fixed in 50.0.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-3552 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4183
transitive, CVSS 8.2, fixed in 2.15.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4183 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4143
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4143 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4144
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4144 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4149
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4149 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4150
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4150 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4151
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4151 - uv.lockanyio 4.14.1 — PYSEC-2026-4023
transitive, CVSS 7.0, fixed in 4.14.2
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4023 - uv.lockanyio 4.14.1 — PYSEC-2026-4024
transitive, CVSS 6.8, fixed in 4.14.2
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4024 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4146
transitive, CVSS 6.5
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4146 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4152
transitive, CVSS 5.9, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4152 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4140
transitive, CVSS 5.3, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4140 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4141
transitive, CVSS 5.3, fixed in 2.15.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4141 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4142
transitive, CVSS 5.3, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4142 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4147
transitive, CVSS 4.8, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4147 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4148
transitive, CVSS 4.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4148
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 5 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
this repository has no issues `03` §5's window covers. An unanswered issue scores 0 under §5, but a repository with no issues filed has not failed to answer one.
- release_cadence
released 5 day(s) ago (by tags), inside `03` §5's 30-day window
- bus_factor
sole maintainer
- 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
pyproject.toml declares 'MIT' but no LICENSE file ships with the source
- readme_quality
README.md: configuration documented (+25)
- 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.