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 9.5.2.

— Signed — SLSA — SBOM ✓ Security policy Quarterly cadence · 88d 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: 20d ago
Release cadence: quarterly Present
88d median over recent releases Release history
Latest release: 2mo ago
Maintainer active Present
Recent commit activity Repository
Last commit: 7d ago
Checksums (SHA256SUMS) Not active yet
SHA256SUMS or equivalent Release asset
Latest release: 2mo ago
GitHub Actions attestation Not active yet
actions/attest-build-provenance Workflow file
Latest release: 2mo ago
Signing assets Not active yet
.sig, .crt, cosign.pub, or similar Release asset
Latest release: 2mo ago
7.4/10 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

7d stale

scorecard

2.92 / 4.0

Score 7.3/10

cve health

1.25 / 2.5

⚠ Estimated — no scan yet

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

5.0

25%

direct cves: clear cve scan: estimated

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: 7d

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
Packaging -1 packaging workflow not detected
Dependency-Update-Tool 10 update tool detected
Dangerous-Workflow 10 no dangerous workflow patterns detected
Token-Permissions 10 GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
Maintained 10 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Security-Policy 10 security policy file detected
Code-Review 0 Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
CII-Best-Practices 5 badge detected: Passing
License 9 license file detected
Binary-Artifacts 10 no binaries found in the repo
Signed-Releases 0 Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Vulnerabilities 10 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Pinned-Dependencies 7 dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
SAST 10 SAST tool is run on all commits
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
Fuzzing 0 project is not fuzzed
CI-Tests 10 2 out of 2 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]