io.github.zw008/vmware-pilot
version 1.8.7
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/zw008/VMware-Pilot
- transport stdio
- files read 25
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
100
100measured on 65% of this axis
35
100measured on 65% of this axis
78measured 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
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 3 credential-shaped string(s), every one from a keyword or entropy heuristic (Basic Auth Credentials, 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 tests/test_executor.py:403; Secret Keyword at tests/test_models.py:108; Basic Auth Credentials at tests/test_safe_error_passthrough.py:146
- authorization_granularity
15 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
Dependency Health
- uv.lockanyio 4.13.0 — 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 4.13.0 — 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 1 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
every issue read was filed by the project itself (3 by its maintainers or bots), so none is someone outside waiting for an answer, and `03` §5's question — will anyone read an issue I file? — has nothing to measure.
- release_cadence
released 1 day(s) ago (by releases), inside `03` §5's 30-day window
- bus_factor
3 authors with >= 5 commits in 12 months
- 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: 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
RELEASE_NOTES.md present
- security_contact
SECURITY.md present
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.