com.hankookilbo.mcp/hankookilbo-mcp
version 1.0.1
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/hkilbo/hankookilbo-mcp
- commit 0a2b4c9420a5
- transport streamable-http
- methodology 0.2.0
No tag matching version 1.0.1 was found in this repository, so the scan read the default branch instead. The findings below describe that code, not necessarily the released version.
not assessed
no source files in a language the ruleset covers (python, javascript, typescript, go)
80measured on 25% of this axis
not assessed
no lockfile in the fetched source; dependency versions are unresolved, so no vulnerability can be attributed
63measured on 45% of this axis
5
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
source was fetched but every file in it was oversized, unreadable or excluded, so no source text could be read, and no credential header is declared. An undeclared header is not an absent one — measured 2026-09-15, only 10 of 100 remotes declare one at all — so `03` §4's "no authentication" band is not established.
- transport_security
declared endpoint(s) are HTTPS: https://mcp.hankookilbo.com/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
source was fetched but every file in it was oversized, unreadable or excluded, so no source text could be read, so there is nothing to scan for committed credentials
- authorization_granularity
source was fetched but every file in it was oversized, unreadable or excluded, so no source text could be read, so neither the tool count nor any access-control logic can be read
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 77 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
this repository publishes neither releases nor version tags
- bus_factor
no author reached `03` §5's 5-commit bar in the last 12 months (0 contributor(s) with fewer) — scored at §5's weakest described band, which the section defines for a quiet 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
no LICENSE file and no license field in any package manifest — `03` §7: without a license, a consumer has no grant to use the server at all
- readme_quality
README.md: states what the server does in the first 200 words (+20)
- declared_scopes
neither the README nor the MCP manifest documents what the server accesses or what side effects it has
- 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.