Skip to content

Security Deep Dive

LDAP Account Manager (LAM)

Security posture and CVE patch evidence from tracked releases.

Back to Tool

No CVEs tracked against 9.6.

— Signed — SLSA — SBOM ✓ Security policy Quarterly cadence · 79d median Active maintainer

Trust Signals — 3 of 9 Present

Evidence already collected from releases and repository metadata.

3/9 Present
Signed releases Unknown
Latest release artifact signature Latest release
SLSA provenance Unknown
Attestation predicate level Latest release
SBOM published Unknown
GitHub SBOM API Latest release
SECURITY.md Present
GitHub repository metadata Repository policy
Checked: 1mo ago
Release cadence: quarterly Present
79d median over recent releases Release history
Latest release: 1mo ago
Maintainer active Present
Recent commit activity Repository
Last commit: 13d ago
Checksums (SHA256SUMS) Not active yet
SHA256SUMS or equivalent Release asset
Latest release: 1mo ago
GitHub Actions attestation Not active yet
actions/attest-build-provenance Workflow file
Latest release: 1mo ago
Signing assets Not active yet
.sig, .crt, cosign.pub, or similar Release asset
Latest release: 1mo ago
8.7/10 Security Score
7.3/10 Scorecard

Security Score

A composite score aggregating Scorecard performance, CVE patch history, OpenSSF badge tier, and dependency vulnerability exposure. Score ≥ 7.0 is healthy; < 4.0 warrants attention.

epss

0.25 / 0.5

No EPSS data

freshness

1.00 / 1.0

6d stale

scorecard

2.92 / 4.0

Score 7.3/10

cve health

2.50 / 2.5

No open CVEs

patch speed

0.50 / 0.5

⚠ Estimated — no CVE patch history

kev exposure

1.50 / 1.5

No KEV exposure

supply chain risk

0.00 / 10.0

Risk 0.0/100

Score breakdown

schema v2

Vulnerability posture

vulnerability posture

10.0

25%

direct cves: clear cve scan: available

Release responsiveness

release responsiveness

10.0

5%

patch speed days: no_history

Dependency exposure

dependency exposure

10.0

10%

supply chain risk: 0.0 transitive cves: 0c/0h

Provenance trust

provenance trust

7.3

40%

scorecard score: 7.3 openssf badge: none

Maintainer health

maintainer health

10.0

10%

activity freshness: 6d

Operational risk

operational risk

8.5

10%

kev exposure: clear epss max: none
How is this calculated?

The six dimensions group the legacy score signals into weighted categories: direct vulnerability status, patch responsiveness, dependency exposure, provenance checks, maintainer activity, and exploitability risk. The flat component values above remain available for compatibility.

Scorecard

Scorecard 7.3/10

OpenSSF Scorecard evaluates supply-chain security practices automatically. Score ≥ 6 is passing; ≥ 8 is excellent.

Check Score Reason
Code-Review 0 Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Maintained 10 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Dangerous-Workflow 10 no dangerous workflow patterns detected
Security-Policy 10 security policy file detected
Dependency-Update-Tool 10 update tool detected
Packaging -1 packaging workflow not detected
Token-Permissions 10 GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
CII-Best-Practices 5 badge detected: Passing
Binary-Artifacts 10 no binaries found in the repo
Vulnerabilities 10 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
SAST 10 SAST tool is run on all commits
License 9 license file detected
Pinned-Dependencies 7 dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Signed-Releases 0 Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Fuzzing 0 project is not fuzzed
Branch-Protection -1 internal 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
CI-Tests 10 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Contributors 3 project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Beta — feedback welcome: [email protected]