gitsafehub
github.com/grundoon/swiftarr-fotomat ↗

grundoon/swiftarr-fotomat

scanned 2026-08-10 · git 2a7597c
1 of 6 checks flagged a security issue
🔴 Needs attention
Only 5 of 6 checks finished — treat this as provisional. Re-check ↻

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

Leaked secrets✓Vulnerable dependencies9Known OSS vulnerabilities✓Risky code patterns✓Malicious dependencies✓Project health—

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ⓘ 9 found · 1 serious

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

  • Serious GHSA-mgc4-wqv7-4pxm SwiftNIO vulnerable to HTTP request smuggling using malformed Transfer-Encoding header
    Package.resolved
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (GHSA-mgc4-wqv7-4pxm). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing CVE-2026-28980 SwiftNIO NIOHTTP1: HTTPDecoder accepts unbounded HTTP/1 header blocks, enabling remote DoS
    Package.resolved
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-28980). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing CVE-2026-43671 SwiftNIO: Out-of-bounds write via ByteBuffer index and length UInt32 overflow
    Package.resolved
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-43671). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing CVE-2022-3215 SwiftNIO vulnerable to Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Response Splitting')
    Package.resolved
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2022-3215). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing CVE-2022-31005 Vapor vulnerable to denial of service in HTTP Range Request of FileMiddleware
    Package.resolved
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2022-31005). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing CVE-2022-31019 Vapor vulnerable to denial of service in URLEncodedFormDecoder
    Package.resolved
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2022-31019). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing CVE-2021-21328 Vapor's Metrics integration could cause a system drain
    Package.resolved
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2021-21328). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing CVE-2021-32742 Untrusted data fed into `Data.init(base32Encoded:)` can result in exposing server memory and/or crash
    Package.resolved
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2021-32742). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing CVE-2024-21631 Vapor contains an integer overflow in URI leading to potential host spoofing
    Package.resolved
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2024-21631). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.

via Trivy v0.70.0 · Apache-2.0

Known OSS vulnerabilities — OSV-Scannerⓘ none found ✓

Your dependencies cross-checked against the OSV vulnerability database.

Nothing found by this check. ✓

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ⓘ none found ✓

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

Nothing found by this check. ✓

via Guarddog v2.10.0 · Apache-2.0

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ⓘ didn’t run

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

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

via OpenSSF Scorecard · 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.