gitsafehub
github.com/google-deepmind/alphafold ↗

google-deepmind/alphafold

scanned 2026-06-28 · git c77e5d2
1 of 6 checks flagged a security issue
🟡 Worth a look
Only 5 of 6 checks finished — treat this as provisional. Re-check ↻

Informational scan, not a security audit. How this is computed.

Leaked secretsVulnerable dependenciesKnown OSS vulnerabilities2Risky code patternsMalicious dependenciesProject health7

Security checks

Leaked secrets — Gitleaks none found ✓

API keys, passwords or tokens committed into the repo.

Nothing found by this check. ✓

via Gitleaks v8.21.2 · MIT

Vulnerable dependencies — Trivy none found ✓

Packages you depend on that have known security holes (CVEs).

Nothing found by this check. ✓

via Trivy v0.70.0 · Apache-2.0

Known OSS vulnerabilities — OSV-Scanner 2 found

Your dependencies cross-checked against the OSV vulnerability database.

  • Worth fixing PYSEC-2026-215 Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) for Python provides support for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) and Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing. In versions prior
    /workdirs/scan-900988e4-1425-40ed-baa5-fd0eca6a0edd/docker/requirements.txt
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-45409). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing GHSA-x3vf-39hj-gxr4 Biopython is vulnerable to doctype XML external entity (XXE) injection through Bio.Entrez
    /workdirs/scan-900988e4-1425-40ed-baa5-fd0eca6a0edd/requirements.txt
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2025-68463). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.

via OSV-Scanner v1.9.2 · Apache-2.0

Risky code patterns — Semgrep none found ✓

Code that can be exploited — injection, hardcoded credentials and similar.

Nothing found by this check. ✓

via Semgrep v1.147.0 · LGPL-2.1

Malicious dependencies — Guarddog couldn’t run

Packages that look intentionally malicious — typosquats, sneaky install scripts.

This check didn’t finish — that’s not the same as “clean.” Try Check again above.

via Guarddog v2.10.0 · Apache-2.0

error: pypi:Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/bin/guarddog", line 5, in <module> from guarddog.cli import cl

Project health

A signal about how the project is maintained — not a vulnerability in your code. It doesn’t affect the verdict above.

Project health — OpenSSF Scorecard 7 notes

Maintenance & supply-chain hygiene. A signal about the project — not a vulnerability in your code.

  • Minor scorecard-overall OpenSSF Scorecard overall: 4.1/10
    A project-health signal (maintenance / supply-chain hygiene) — not a vulnerability in your code.
  • Minor scorecard-CII-Best-Practices CII-Best-Practices scored 0: no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
    A project-health signal (maintenance / supply-chain hygiene) — not a vulnerability in your code.
  • Minor scorecard-Dependency-Update-Tool Dependency-Update-Tool scored 0: no update tool detected
    A project-health signal (maintenance / supply-chain hygiene) — not a vulnerability in your code.
  • Minor scorecard-Fuzzing Fuzzing scored 0: project is not fuzzed
    A project-health signal (maintenance / supply-chain hygiene) — not a vulnerability in your code.
  • Minor scorecard-Pinned-Dependencies Pinned-Dependencies scored 0: dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
    A project-health signal (maintenance / supply-chain hygiene) — not a vulnerability in your code.
  • Minor scorecard-SAST SAST scored 0: no SAST tool detected
    A project-health signal (maintenance / supply-chain hygiene) — not a vulnerability in your code.
  • Minor scorecard-Security-Policy Security-Policy scored 0: security policy file not detected
    A project-health signal (maintenance / supply-chain hygiene) — not a vulnerability in your code.

via OpenSSF Scorecard v5.5.0 · Apache-2.0

About these results. Six open-source checks ran in parallel; every finding is tagged with the tool that produced it. The verdict follows a published rule. False positives and false negatives are normal — a clean scan does not mean the code is secure, and a red verdict does not mean the project is compromised.