gitsafehub
github.com/youfou/wxpy ↗

youfou/wxpy

scanned 2026-06-30 · git ab63e12
2 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 dependencies✓Known OSS vulnerabilities5Risky code patterns✓Malicious dependencies2Project 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ⓘ 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ⓘ 5 found

Your dependencies cross-checked against the OSV vulnerability database.

  • Worth fixing PYSEC-2018-28 The Requests package before 2.20.0 for Python sends an HTTP Authorization header to an http URI upon receiving a same-hostname https-to-http redirect, which makes it easier for remote attackers to dis
    /workdirs/scan-875d22e7-1524-425a-8a28-7dcacc1017d1/requirements.txt
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2018-18074). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing PYSEC-2023-74 Requests is a HTTP library. Since Requests 2.3.0, Requests has been leaking Proxy-Authorization headers to destination servers when redirected to an HTTPS endpoint. This is a product of how we use `re
    /workdirs/scan-875d22e7-1524-425a-8a28-7dcacc1017d1/requirements.txt
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2023-32681). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing GHSA-9hjg-9r4m-mvj7 Requests vulnerable to .netrc credentials leak via malicious URLs
    /workdirs/scan-875d22e7-1524-425a-8a28-7dcacc1017d1/requirements.txt
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2024-47081). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing GHSA-9wx4-h78v-vm56 Requests `Session` object does not verify requests after making first request with verify=False
    /workdirs/scan-875d22e7-1524-425a-8a28-7dcacc1017d1/requirements.txt
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2024-35195). Fix: Update that package to its patched version.
  • Worth fixing GHSA-gc5v-m9x4-r6x2 Requests has Insecure Temp File Reuse in its extract_zipped_paths() utility function
    /workdirs/scan-875d22e7-1524-425a-8a28-7dcacc1017d1/requirements.txt
    A package you depend on has a known security hole (CVE-2026-25645). 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ⓘ 2 found · 1 serious

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

  • Serious guarddog-pypi-code-execution code-execution match in future 1.0.0
    future
    A dependency shows signs of being intentionally malicious (typosquat, hidden install script, etc.). Fix: Don’t install it until you’ve verified the package — consider removing it.
  • Worth fixing guarddog-pypi-obfuscation obfuscation match in future 1.0.0
    future
    A dependency shows signs of being intentionally malicious (typosquat, hidden install script, etc.). Fix: Don’t install it until you’ve verified the package — consider removing it.

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.