ai.limitguard.api/trust-intelligence

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

• scripts/off-argv-login.py:308mcp-python-path-join-unvalidated (medium/low)

  A filesystem path is assembled from a value that is not a literal and opened without confinement. os.path.join discards the base entirely when the second component is absolute, and neither join nor `/` resolves `..`.

                          # material has left the machine, so from here the
                          # /proc-visible copies can go.
                          with open(f"/proc/{pid}/mem", "r+b", buffering=0) as mem:
                              scrubbed = scrub_stack(
                                  mem, stack_ranges(pid), needle

Auth Posture

• authentication_model

  credential requirement present; enforcement partially evidenced

• transport_security

  declared endpoint(s) are HTTPS: https://api.limitguard.ai/mcp; 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

  detect-secrets matched 1 credential-shaped string(s), every one from a keyword or entropy heuristic (Hex High Entropy String). 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; Hex High Entropy String at .github/workflows/release.yml:44

• authorization_granularity

  10 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 2026-10-11

• issue_responsiveness

  lifetime median (2 issue(s) in the last 6 months, under `03` §5's floor of 3): 15.1 day(s) to first maintainer comment

• release_cadence

  released 2 day(s) ago (by releases), 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

  LICENSE present with no SPDX-License-Identifier tag; identified as 'MIT' from its text

• readme_quality

  README.md: installation instructions (+25), 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

  CHANGELOG.md present

• security_contact

  no SECURITY.md and no disclosure contact in the README, so a finder has no route to report a vulnerability privately