Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 10:23 UTC

devslab-kr / ssrf-guard

SSRF protection for the JVM — whitelist + private-IP filter + redirect re-validation + LLM-agent tool URL validation (Spring AI + LangChain4j). Modules for RestClient, RestTemplate, WebClient (reactor-netty DNS-time), Feign, Spring AI, LangChain4j, OkHttp, JDK HttpClient, Apache HttpClient 5. GraalVM native-image hints included.

JavaApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Sep 2025View on GitHub ↗

devslab-kr/ssrf-guard holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (79/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (36/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

62
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

devslabOrganization
2 followers21 public repossince Mar 2024

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

79Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
14.9/18Commit volume — 45 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year45
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year8

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 9 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 71 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~39.9 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv3.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release71
mean_days_between_releases39.9

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

36Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

42Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.964
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 29/29 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs29
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of devslab-kr
15/25Track record — 21 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logindevslab-kr
public_repos21
account_age_days962

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://ssrf-guard.devslab.kr/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 19 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjava, owasp, security, spring-boot, spring-boot-starter, ssrf, web-security, feign, jvm, llm, okhttp, restclient, resttemplate, spring-ai, spring-cloud, webclient, webflux, graalvm, langchain4j
has_wikino
homepagehttps://ssrf-guard.devslab.kr/
docs_sitehttps://ssrf-guard.devslab.kr/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

52Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 49 of 55 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.891
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,422
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-benchmarks/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-core/build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 55
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsbuild.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-benchmarks/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-core/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-feign/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-httpclient5/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-jdkhttp/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-langchain4j/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-llm/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-okhttp/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-restclient/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-resttemplate/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-springai/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard-webclient/build.gradle.kts, ssrf-guard/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/63 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes13,372
source_files_sampled63
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
2contributors
45commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
9releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Maven, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-10-19 10:22 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.