gitsafehub
github.com/mozilla/bugbot ↗

mozilla/bugbot

scanned 2026-08-05 · git 51ea8c0
3 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 secrets1Vulnerable dependencies3Known OSS vulnerabilities4Risky code patterns✓Malicious dependencies✓Project health—

Security checks

Leaked secrets — Gitleaksⓘ 1 found

API keys, passwords or tokens committed into the repo.

  • Worth fixing generic-api-key Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
    .taskcluster.yml:44
    A credential (key, password or token) appears in your code. Fix: Remove it, rotate the key, and load it from an environment variable instead.

via Gitleaks v8.21.2 · MIT

Vulnerable dependencies — Trivyⓘ 3 found

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

  • Worth fixing CVE-2026-69247 cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives ...
    uv.lock
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-69247). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing CVE-2026-69249 python-cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic prim ...
    uv.lock
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-69249). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing CVE-2026-69248 cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives ...
    uv.lock
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-69248). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.

via Trivy v0.70.0 · Apache-2.0

Known OSS vulnerabilities — OSV-Scannerⓘ 4 found

Your dependencies cross-checked against the OSV vulnerability database.

  • Worth fixing PYSEC-2026-2132 Pallets Click, versions 8.3.2 and below, contain a command injection vulnerability in the click.edit() function, allowing attackers to pass arbitrary OS commands from an unprivileged account.
    /workdirs/scan-3a0884f6-ad5e-48a8-83f3-769cfb315685/uv.lock
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-7246). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing PYSEC-2026-3552 cryptography: PKCS#7 EnvelopedData decryption exposes a Bleichenbacher oracle through distinguishable errors and timing
    /workdirs/scan-3a0884f6-ad5e-48a8-83f3-769cfb315685/uv.lock
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-69247). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing PYSEC-2026-3553 python-cryptography: Duplicate self-signed intermediates can cause exponential path-building
    /workdirs/scan-3a0884f6-ad5e-48a8-83f3-769cfb315685/uv.lock
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-69249). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing PYSEC-2026-3554 python-cryptography verifier accepts wildcard DNS names allowing escape from permittedSubtrees
    /workdirs/scan-3a0884f6-ad5e-48a8-83f3-769cfb315685/uv.lock
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-69248). 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ⓘ 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.