id
stringlengths 15
114
| source
stringclasses 2
values | prompt
stringlengths 1.03k
4.91k
| response
stringlengths 472
709
| meta
stringlengths 186
557
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
thecodersroom__the-button-that-does-nothing
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "thecodersroom/the-button-that-does-nothing",
"stars": 21,
"created_at": "2025-10-06T18:39:22Z",
"topics": [
"css",
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest-accepted",
"html",
"javascript"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 16,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 10,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 5,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 10,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 5,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 11,
"ERROR": 5
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 16,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 10,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 5,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 10,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 5,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 11,
"ERROR": 5
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a08-2025",
"a09-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo thecodersroom/the-button-that-does-nothing, Semgrep findings changed from 16 to 16 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 11 WARNING-level and 5 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0); A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0); A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (10), owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval (5), owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging (1).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "thecodersroom/the-button-that-does-nothing", "stars": 21, "created_at": "2025-10-06T18:39:22Z", "topics": ["css", "hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest-accepted", "html", "javascript"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a08-2025", "a09-2025"]}
|
dtinth__morse-rhythm
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "dtinth/morse-rhythm",
"stars": 32,
"created_at": "2025-10-10T17:30:07Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 60,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 59,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 60
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 60
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 60,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 59,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 60
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 60
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo dtinth/morse-rhythm, Semgrep findings changed from 60 to 60 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 60 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (59), owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (1).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "dtinth/morse-rhythm", "stars": 32, "created_at": "2025-10-10T17:30:07Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"]}
|
K-dash__nblm-rs
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "K-dash/nblm-rs",
"stars": 51,
"created_at": "2025-10-19T04:37:37Z",
"topics": [
"api-client",
"cli",
"gemini",
"google-cloud",
"hacktoberfest",
"notebooklm",
"python",
"rust"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 96,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 94,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 2
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 94,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 2
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 94,
"ERROR": 2
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 96,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 94,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 2
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 94,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 2
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 94,
"ERROR": 2
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a04-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo K-dash/nblm-rs, Semgrep findings changed from 96 to 96 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 94 WARNING-level and 2 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0); A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (94), owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms (2).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "K-dash/nblm-rs", "stars": 51, "created_at": "2025-10-19T04:37:37Z", "topics": ["api-client", "cli", "gemini", "google-cloud", "hacktoberfest", "notebooklm", "python", "rust"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a04-2025"]}
|
microsoft__aspire.dev__src_frontend_src_pages_1ds.js__L57-57__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: microsoft/aspire.dev
- File path: hf_repos_test/microsoft__aspire.dev/src/frontend/src/pages/1ds.js
- Normalized path: src/frontend/src/pages/1ds.js
- Lines: 57-57
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval
- Severity: ERROR
- OWASP categories: A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures
- OWASP tags: a08-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Integrity failures related to untrusted updates, CI/CD pipelines, or data tampering.
- Semgrep message: Software/Data Integrity Failure: dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec/Function) can lead to remote code execution if inputs are not strictly controlled.
Code BEFORE:
const js = `(function () {
if (typeof location !== 'undefined' && location.origin !== 'https://aspire.dev') {
Code AFTER:
const js = `(function () {
if (typeof location !== 'undefined' && location.origin !== 'https://aspire.dev') {
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval' with severity ERROR. Software/Data Integrity Failure: dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec/Function) can lead to remote code execution if inputs are not strictly controlled.
This relates to A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "microsoft/aspire.dev", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/microsoft__aspire.dev/src/frontend/src/pages/1ds.js", "path": "src/frontend/src/pages/1ds.js", "start_line": 57, "end_line": 57, "rule_id": "owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval", "severity": "ERROR", "owasp": ["A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a08-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
go-co-op__gocron-ui__examples_getting_started_README.md__L242-242__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: go-co-op/gocron-ui
- File path: hf_repos_test/go-co-op__gocron-ui/examples/getting_started/README.md
- Normalized path: examples/getting_started/README.md
- Lines: 242-242
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
---
Code AFTER:
---
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "go-co-op/gocron-ui", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/go-co-op__gocron-ui/examples/getting_started/README.md", "path": "examples/getting_started/README.md", "start_line": 242, "end_line": 242, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
acesdit__ProjectHive
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "acesdit/ProjectHive",
"stars": 27,
"created_at": "2025-10-17T12:24:22Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest2025",
"hactoberfest-accepted",
"hactoberfest2025-accepted"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 9197,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 3673,
"owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch": 314,
"owasp-a08-untrusted-deserialization": 16,
"owasp-a02-debug-mode-enabled": 6,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 116,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 240,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 3379,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 46,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 139,
"owasp-a07-plaintext-password-literal": 14,
"owasp-a04-hardcoded-crypto-key": 2,
"owasp-a05-sql-injection-dynamic-query": 1,
"owasp-a01-direct-object-reference-id": 2,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 1248,
"owasp-a06-todo-auth-security": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 7052,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 1562,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 132,
"A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration": 6,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 240,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 48,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 141,
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 14,
"A05:2025 - Injection": 1,
"A06:2025 - Insecure Design": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 8904,
"ERROR": 292,
"INFO": 1
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 9197,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 3673,
"owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch": 314,
"owasp-a08-untrusted-deserialization": 16,
"owasp-a02-debug-mode-enabled": 6,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 116,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 240,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 3379,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 46,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 139,
"owasp-a07-plaintext-password-literal": 14,
"owasp-a04-hardcoded-crypto-key": 2,
"owasp-a05-sql-injection-dynamic-query": 1,
"owasp-a01-direct-object-reference-id": 2,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 1248,
"owasp-a06-todo-auth-security": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 7052,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 1562,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 132,
"A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration": 6,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 240,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 48,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 141,
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 14,
"A05:2025 - Injection": 1,
"A06:2025 - Insecure Design": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 8904,
"ERROR": 292,
"INFO": 1
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a01-direct-object-reference-id": 0,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0,
"owasp-a02-debug-mode-enabled": 0,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 0,
"owasp-a05-sql-injection-dynamic-query": 0,
"owasp-a08-untrusted-deserialization": 0,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a04-hardcoded-crypto-key": 0,
"owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch": 0,
"owasp-a06-todo-auth-security": 0,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 0,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a07-plaintext-password-literal": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 0,
"A06:2025 - Insecure Design": 0,
"A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration": 0,
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 0,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 0,
"A05:2025 - Injection": 0,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "high",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a10-2025",
"a08-2025",
"a02-2025",
"a09-2025",
"a01-2025",
"a04-2025",
"a07-2025",
"a05-2025",
"a06-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo acesdit/ProjectHive, Semgrep findings changed from 9197 to 9197 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 8904 WARNING-level and 292 ERROR-level findings. This repository is currently flagged as a **high-risk** repo in the latest Semgrep scan due to a large number of ERROR-level findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures (+0); A06:2025 - Insecure Design (+0); A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (3673), owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (3379), owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks (1248).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "acesdit/ProjectHive", "stars": 27, "created_at": "2025-10-17T12:24:22Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest2025", "hactoberfest-accepted", "hactoberfest2025-accepted"], "flag_status": "high", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a10-2025", "a08-2025", "a02-2025", "a09-2025", "a01-2025", "a04-2025", "a07-2025", "a05-2025", "a06-2025"]}
|
CuriousLearner__django-keel
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "CuriousLearner/django-keel",
"stars": 311,
"created_at": "2025-10-09T01:30:13Z",
"topics": [
"ansible",
"celery",
"copier",
"django",
"django-template",
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest2025",
"htmx",
"keel",
"kubernetes",
"nextjs",
"template",
"temporal",
"uv"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 88,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 88
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 88
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 88
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 88,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 88
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 88
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 88
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo CuriousLearner/django-keel, Semgrep findings changed from 88 to 88 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 88 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (88).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "CuriousLearner/django-keel", "stars": 311, "created_at": "2025-10-09T01:30:13Z", "topics": ["ansible", "celery", "copier", "django", "django-template", "hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest2025", "htmx", "keel", "kubernetes", "nextjs", "template", "temporal", "uv"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"]}
|
AbhishekChamp879__Mind_Care
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "AbhishekChamp879/Mind_Care",
"stars": 27,
"created_at": "2025-10-02T07:27:19Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest2025",
"hacktoberfest2025-accepted",
"hacktoberfest2025-active",
"hacktoberfest2025-approved"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 305,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 28,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 272,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 2,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 1,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 2
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 300,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 2,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 1,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 2
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 303,
"ERROR": 2
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 305,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 28,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 272,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 2,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 1,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 2
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 300,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 2,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 1,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 2
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 303,
"ERROR": 2
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 0,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a01-2025",
"a09-2025",
"a08-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo AbhishekChamp879/Mind_Care, Semgrep findings changed from 305 to 305 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 303 WARNING-level and 2 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0); A01:2025 - Broken Access Control (+0); A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (272), owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (28), owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint (2).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "AbhishekChamp879/Mind_Care", "stars": 27, "created_at": "2025-10-02T07:27:19Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest2025", "hacktoberfest2025-accepted", "hacktoberfest2025-active", "hacktoberfest2025-approved"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a01-2025", "a09-2025", "a08-2025"]}
|
microsoft__aspire.dev
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "microsoft/aspire.dev",
"stars": 50,
"created_at": "2025-10-28T20:00:24Z",
"topics": [
"aspire",
"aspire-dashboard",
"cli",
"cloud-native",
"csharp",
"distributed",
"hacktoberfest",
"javascript",
"polyglot",
"python",
"toolkit"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 803,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 523,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 3,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 276,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 799,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 3,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 799,
"ERROR": 4
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 803,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 523,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 3,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 276,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 799,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 3,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 799,
"ERROR": 4
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a04-2025",
"a08-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo microsoft/aspire.dev, Semgrep findings changed from 803 to 803 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 799 WARNING-level and 4 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0); A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0); A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (523), owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (276), owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms (3).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "microsoft/aspire.dev", "stars": 50, "created_at": "2025-10-28T20:00:24Z", "topics": ["aspire", "aspire-dashboard", "cli", "cloud-native", "csharp", "distributed", "hacktoberfest", "javascript", "polyglot", "python", "toolkit"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a04-2025", "a08-2025"]}
|
The-DevOps-Daily__terraform-provider-validatefx
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "The-DevOps-Daily/terraform-provider-validatefx",
"stars": 21,
"created_at": "2025-10-09T17:52:38Z",
"topics": [
"devops",
"go",
"golang",
"hacktoberfest",
"terraform"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 198,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 151,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 47
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 151,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 47
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 198
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 198,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 151,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 47
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 151,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 47
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 198
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a01-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo The-DevOps-Daily/terraform-provider-validatefx, Semgrep findings changed from 198 to 198 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 198 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0); A01:2025 - Broken Access Control (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (151), owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint (47).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "The-DevOps-Daily/terraform-provider-validatefx", "stars": 21, "created_at": "2025-10-09T17:52:38Z", "topics": ["devops", "go", "golang", "hacktoberfest", "terraform"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a01-2025"]}
|
CuriousLearner__django-keel__template_docs_index.md.jinja__L187-187__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: CuriousLearner/django-keel
- File path: hf_repos_test/CuriousLearner__django-keel/template/docs/index.md.jinja
- Normalized path: template/docs/index.md.jinja
- Lines: 187-187
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
---
Code AFTER:
---
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "CuriousLearner/django-keel", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/CuriousLearner__django-keel/template/docs/index.md.jinja", "path": "template/docs/index.md.jinja", "start_line": 187, "end_line": 187, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
pixel-museum__css-art-museum__server_setup.md__L49-49__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: pixel-museum/css-art-museum
- File path: hf_repos_test/pixel-museum__css-art-museum/server/setup.md
- Normalized path: server/setup.md
- Lines: 49-49
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
---
Code AFTER:
---
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "pixel-museum/css-art-museum", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/pixel-museum__css-art-museum/server/setup.md", "path": "server/setup.md", "start_line": 49, "end_line": 49, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
go-co-op__gocron-ui
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "go-co-op/gocron-ui",
"stars": 28,
"created_at": "2025-10-06T20:43:56Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 27,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 26,
"owasp-a03-docker-latest-tag": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 27
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 27
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 27,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 26,
"owasp-a03-docker-latest-tag": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 27
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 27
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-docker-latest-tag": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo go-co-op/gocron-ui, Semgrep findings changed from 27 to 27 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 27 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (26), owasp-a03-docker-latest-tag (1).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "go-co-op/gocron-ui", "stars": 28, "created_at": "2025-10-06T20:43:56Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"]}
|
Lamatic__AgentKit
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "Lamatic/AgentKit",
"stars": 25,
"created_at": "2025-10-01T07:17:52Z",
"topics": [
"agents",
"ai",
"good-first-issue",
"hacktoberfest",
"nocode",
"nocode4prod"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 376,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 250,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 6,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 120
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 370,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 6
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 370,
"ERROR": 6
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 376,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 250,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 6,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 120
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 370,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 6
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 370,
"ERROR": 6
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a08-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo Lamatic/AgentKit, Semgrep findings changed from 376 to 376 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 370 WARNING-level and 6 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0); A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (250), owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (120), owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval (6).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "Lamatic/AgentKit", "stars": 25, "created_at": "2025-10-01T07:17:52Z", "topics": ["agents", "ai", "good-first-issue", "hacktoberfest", "nocode", "nocode4prod"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a08-2025"]}
|
pixel-museum__css-art-museum
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "pixel-museum/css-art-museum",
"stars": 40,
"created_at": "2025-10-02T04:23:22Z",
"topics": [
"art",
"css3",
"frontend",
"hacktoberfest",
"html5",
"javascript"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 89,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 42,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 4,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 42,
"owasp-a02-overly-permissive-cors": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 84,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 4,
"A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 85,
"ERROR": 4
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 89,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 42,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 4,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 42,
"owasp-a02-overly-permissive-cors": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 84,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 4,
"A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 85,
"ERROR": 4
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a02-overly-permissive-cors": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration": 0,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a08-2025",
"a02-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo pixel-museum/css-art-museum, Semgrep findings changed from 89 to 89 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 85 WARNING-level and 4 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration (+0); A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0); A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (42), owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (42), owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval (4).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "pixel-museum/css-art-museum", "stars": 40, "created_at": "2025-10-02T04:23:22Z", "topics": ["art", "css3", "frontend", "hacktoberfest", "html5", "javascript"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a08-2025", "a02-2025"]}
|
TinyActive__nginx-love
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "TinyActive/nginx-love",
"stars": 279,
"created_at": "2025-10-02T05:15:15Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest",
"high-performance",
"loadbalancer",
"nginx",
"nginx-reverse-proxy",
"nginx-reverse-proxy-manager",
"self-hosted",
"waf",
"web-application-firewall"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 616,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 584,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 3,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 21,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 6,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 1,
"owasp-a07-password-equality-check": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 587,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 21,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 6,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 1,
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 594,
"ERROR": 22
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 616,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 584,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 3,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 21,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 6,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 1,
"owasp-a07-password-equality-check": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 587,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 21,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 6,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 1,
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 594,
"ERROR": 22
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0,
"owasp-a07-password-equality-check": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 0,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a04-2025",
"a01-2025",
"a08-2025",
"a07-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo TinyActive/nginx-love, Semgrep findings changed from 616 to 616 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 594 WARNING-level and 22 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A07:2025 - Authentication Failures (+0); A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0); A01:2025 - Broken Access Control (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (584), owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms (21), owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint (6).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "TinyActive/nginx-love", "stars": 279, "created_at": "2025-10-02T05:15:15Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest", "high-performance", "loadbalancer", "nginx", "nginx-reverse-proxy", "nginx-reverse-proxy-manager", "self-hosted", "waf", "web-application-firewall"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a04-2025", "a01-2025", "a08-2025", "a07-2025"]}
|
alam00000__bentopdf
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "alam00000/bentopdf",
"stars": 4723,
"created_at": "2025-10-12T13:30:08Z",
"topics": [
"bentopdf",
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest-accepted",
"javascript",
"jpgtopdf",
"pdf",
"pdf-converter",
"pdf-document",
"pdf-document-processor",
"pdf-generation",
"pdf-viewer",
"pdffiller",
"privacy",
"toolkit",
"typescript"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 762,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 74,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 467,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 175,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 32,
"owasp-a07-password-equality-check": 2,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 5,
"owasp-a05-sql-injection-dynamic-query": 7
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 541,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 175,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 32,
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 2,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 5,
"A05:2025 - Injection": 7
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 548,
"ERROR": 214
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 762,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 74,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 467,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 175,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 32,
"owasp-a07-password-equality-check": 2,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 5,
"owasp-a05-sql-injection-dynamic-query": 7
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 541,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 175,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 32,
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 2,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 5,
"A05:2025 - Injection": 7
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 548,
"ERROR": 214
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0,
"owasp-a07-password-equality-check": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 0,
"owasp-a05-sql-injection-dynamic-query": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 0,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 0,
"A05:2025 - Injection": 0,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "high",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a08-2025",
"a04-2025",
"a07-2025",
"a09-2025",
"a05-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo alam00000/bentopdf, Semgrep findings changed from 762 to 762 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 548 WARNING-level and 214 ERROR-level findings. This repository is currently flagged as a **high-risk** repo in the latest Semgrep scan due to a large number of ERROR-level findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A07:2025 - Authentication Failures (+0); A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0); A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (467), owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval (175), owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (74).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "alam00000/bentopdf", "stars": 4723, "created_at": "2025-10-12T13:30:08Z", "topics": ["bentopdf", "hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest-accepted", "javascript", "jpgtopdf", "pdf", "pdf-converter", "pdf-document", "pdf-document-processor", "pdf-generation", "pdf-viewer", "pdffiller", "privacy", "toolkit", "typescript"], "flag_status": "high", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a08-2025", "a04-2025", "a07-2025", "a09-2025", "a05-2025"]}
|
php-testo__testo
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "php-testo/testo",
"stars": 51,
"created_at": "2025-10-12T13:05:57Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 4,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 4
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 4
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 4
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 4,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 4
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 4
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 4
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo php-testo/testo, Semgrep findings changed from 4 to 4 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 4 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (4).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "php-testo/testo", "stars": 51, "created_at": "2025-10-12T13:05:57Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"]}
|
CelaDaniel__free-ai-resources-x__README.md__L176-176__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: CelaDaniel/free-ai-resources-x
- File path: hf_repos_test/CelaDaniel__free-ai-resources-x/README.md
- Normalized path: README.md
- Lines: 176-176
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
---
Code AFTER:
---
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "CelaDaniel/free-ai-resources-x", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/CelaDaniel__free-ai-resources-x/README.md", "path": "README.md", "start_line": 176, "end_line": 176, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
TinyActive__nginx-love__scripts_update.sh__L282-282__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: TinyActive/nginx-love
- File path: hf_repos_test/TinyActive__nginx-love/scripts/update.sh
- Normalized path: scripts/update.sh
- Lines: 282-282
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
warn "⚠️ Frontend health check: FAILED (check logs: tail -f /var/log/nginx-love-frontend.log)"
fi
Code AFTER:
warn "⚠️ Frontend health check: FAILED (check logs: tail -f /var/log/nginx-love-frontend.log)"
fi
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "TinyActive/nginx-love", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/TinyActive__nginx-love/scripts/update.sh", "path": "scripts/update.sh", "start_line": 282, "end_line": 282, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
GalsenDev221__map
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "GalsenDev221/map",
"stars": 27,
"created_at": "2025-10-19T16:14:53Z",
"topics": [
"galsen-dev",
"hacktoberfest"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 216,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 15,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 201
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 216
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 216
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 216,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 15,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 201
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 216
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 216
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo GalsenDev221/map, Semgrep findings changed from 216 to 216 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 216 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (201), owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (15).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "GalsenDev221/map", "stars": 27, "created_at": "2025-10-19T16:14:53Z", "topics": ["galsen-dev", "hacktoberfest"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"]}
|
SashankBhamidi__git-gang
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "SashankBhamidi/git-gang",
"stars": 83,
"created_at": "2025-10-04T16:23:49Z",
"topics": [
"beginner-friendly",
"community",
"contributors",
"first-timers",
"github-actions",
"good-first-issue",
"hacktoberfest",
"open-source",
"worldwide"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 7,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 7
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 7
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 7
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 7,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 7
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 7
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 7
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo SashankBhamidi/git-gang, Semgrep findings changed from 7 to 7 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 7 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (7).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "SashankBhamidi/git-gang", "stars": 83, "created_at": "2025-10-04T16:23:49Z", "topics": ["beginner-friendly", "community", "contributors", "first-timers", "github-actions", "good-first-issue", "hacktoberfest", "open-source", "worldwide"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"]}
|
nicofretti__DataGenFlow__llm_state-project.md__L570-570__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: nicofretti/DataGenFlow
- File path: hf_repos_test/nicofretti__DataGenFlow/llm/state-project.md
- Normalized path: llm/state-project.md
- Lines: 570-570
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
---
Code AFTER:
---
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "nicofretti/DataGenFlow", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/nicofretti__DataGenFlow/llm/state-project.md", "path": "llm/state-project.md", "start_line": 570, "end_line": 570, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
noodles-sed__Simple-DSA__javascript_3sum.js__L1-1__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: noodles-sed/Simple-DSA
- File path: hf_repos_test/noodles-sed__Simple-DSA/javascript/3sum.js
- Normalized path: javascript/3sum.js
- Lines: 1-1
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval
- Severity: ERROR
- OWASP categories: A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures
- OWASP tags: a08-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Integrity failures related to untrusted updates, CI/CD pipelines, or data tampering.
- Semgrep message: Software/Data Integrity Failure: dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec/Function) can lead to remote code execution if inputs are not strictly controlled.
Code BEFORE:
var threeSum = function(nums) {
let res = [];
Code AFTER:
var threeSum = function(nums) {
let res = [];
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval' with severity ERROR. Software/Data Integrity Failure: dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec/Function) can lead to remote code execution if inputs are not strictly controlled.
This relates to A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "noodles-sed/Simple-DSA", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/noodles-sed__Simple-DSA/javascript/3sum.js", "path": "javascript/3sum.js", "start_line": 1, "end_line": 1, "rule_id": "owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval", "severity": "ERROR", "owasp": ["A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a08-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
SashankBhamidi__git-gang__LICENSE__L21-21__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: SashankBhamidi/git-gang
- File path: hf_repos_test/SashankBhamidi__git-gang/LICENSE
- Normalized path: LICENSE
- Lines: 21-21
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
Code AFTER:
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "SashankBhamidi/git-gang", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/SashankBhamidi__git-gang/LICENSE", "path": "LICENSE", "start_line": 21, "end_line": 21, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
thecodersroom__the-button-that-does-nothing__js_script.js__L2081-2081__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: thecodersroom/the-button-that-does-nothing
- File path: hf_repos_test/thecodersroom__the-button-that-does-nothing/js/script.js
- Normalized path: js/script.js
- Lines: 2081-2081
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval
- Severity: ERROR
- OWASP categories: A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures
- OWASP tags: a08-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Integrity failures related to untrusted updates, CI/CD pipelines, or data tampering.
- Semgrep message: Software/Data Integrity Failure: dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec/Function) can lead to remote code execution if inputs are not strictly controlled.
Code BEFORE:
// Click handler
resetScoreButton.addEventListener('click', function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
Code AFTER:
// Click handler
resetScoreButton.addEventListener('click', function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval' with severity ERROR. Software/Data Integrity Failure: dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec/Function) can lead to remote code execution if inputs are not strictly controlled.
This relates to A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "thecodersroom/the-button-that-does-nothing", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/thecodersroom__the-button-that-does-nothing/js/script.js", "path": "js/script.js", "start_line": 2081, "end_line": 2081, "rule_id": "owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval", "severity": "ERROR", "owasp": ["A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a08-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
abr4xas__cache-ui-laravel__.gitignore__L9-9__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: abr4xas/cache-ui-laravel
- File path: hf_repos_test/abr4xas__cache-ui-laravel/.gitignore
- Normalized path: .gitignore
- Lines: 9-9
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
*.swo
.idea
Code AFTER:
*.swo
.idea
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "abr4xas/cache-ui-laravel", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/abr4xas__cache-ui-laravel/.gitignore", "path": ".gitignore", "start_line": 9, "end_line": 9, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
arya2004__beginner-python-mini-projects-hacktoberfest-2025
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "arya2004/beginner-python-mini-projects-hacktoberfest-2025",
"stars": 19,
"created_at": "2025-10-02T18:37:21Z",
"topics": [
"begineer",
"good-first-issue",
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest-accepted",
"hacktoberfest-starter",
"hacktoberfest2025",
"python"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 6175,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 6048,
"owasp-a02-debug-mode-enabled": 5,
"owasp-a08-untrusted-deserialization": 1,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 4,
"owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch": 66,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 6,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 38,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 7
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 6048,
"A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration": 5,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 5,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 104,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 6,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 7
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 6158,
"ERROR": 17
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 6175,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 6048,
"owasp-a02-debug-mode-enabled": 5,
"owasp-a08-untrusted-deserialization": 1,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 4,
"owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch": 66,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 6,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 38,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 7
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 6048,
"A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration": 5,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 5,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 104,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 6,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 7
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 6158,
"ERROR": 17
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch": 0,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 0,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 0,
"owasp-a02-debug-mode-enabled": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 0,
"owasp-a08-untrusted-deserialization": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration": 0,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 0,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 0,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a02-2025",
"a08-2025",
"a10-2025",
"a09-2025",
"a04-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo arya2004/beginner-python-mini-projects-hacktoberfest-2025, Semgrep findings changed from 6175 to 6175 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 6158 WARNING-level and 17 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration (+0); A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0); A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (6048), owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch (66), owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks (38).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "arya2004/beginner-python-mini-projects-hacktoberfest-2025", "stars": 19, "created_at": "2025-10-02T18:37:21Z", "topics": ["begineer", "good-first-issue", "hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest-accepted", "hacktoberfest-starter", "hacktoberfest2025", "python"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a02-2025", "a08-2025", "a10-2025", "a09-2025", "a04-2025"]}
|
arya2004__leetcode-daily-october-hacktoberfest-2025__solutions_day24_cpp_solution.cpp__L63-63__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: arya2004/leetcode-daily-october-hacktoberfest-2025
- File path: hf_repos_test/arya2004__leetcode-daily-october-hacktoberfest-2025/solutions/day24/cpp_solution.cpp
- Normalized path: solutions/day24/cpp_solution.cpp
- Lines: 63-63
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms
- Severity: ERROR
- OWASP categories: A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures
- OWASP tags: a04-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Insecure design covers missing or weak security controls at the architectural or design level.
- Semgrep message: Cryptographic Failure: use of insecure or deprecated cryptographic algorithms (MD5, SHA1, DES, RC4, ECB mode, etc.). Use modern algorithms (e.g. SHA-256, AES-GCM) and follow current best practices.
Code BEFORE:
for (int mode : modes) {
int l = leftBound(mode - k);
Code AFTER:
for (int mode : modes) {
int l = leftBound(mode - k);
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms' with severity ERROR. Cryptographic Failure: use of insecure or deprecated cryptographic algorithms (MD5, SHA1, DES, RC4, ECB mode, etc.). Use modern algorithms (e.g. SHA-256, AES-GCM) and follow current best practices.
This relates to A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "arya2004/leetcode-daily-october-hacktoberfest-2025", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/arya2004__leetcode-daily-october-hacktoberfest-2025/solutions/day24/cpp_solution.cpp", "path": "solutions/day24/cpp_solution.cpp", "start_line": 63, "end_line": 63, "rule_id": "owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms", "severity": "ERROR", "owasp": ["A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a04-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
rexdivakar__HippocampAI__web_chat.py__L365-368__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: rexdivakar/HippocampAI
- File path: hf_repos_test/rexdivakar__HippocampAI/web_chat.py
- Normalized path: web_chat.py
- Lines: 365-368
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a02-debug-mode-enabled
- Severity: ERROR
- OWASP categories: A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration
- OWASP tags: a02-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Cryptographic failures involve misuse of encryption, insecure key management, or cleartext sensitive data.
- Semgrep message: Security Misconfiguration: debug or development mode appears to be enabled. Disable debug for production deployments.
Code BEFORE:
# Run Flask app
app.run(
host="0.0.0.0",
port=5000,
debug=True,
use_reloader=False,
Code AFTER:
# Run Flask app
app.run(
host="0.0.0.0",
port=5000,
debug=True,
use_reloader=False,
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a02-debug-mode-enabled' with severity ERROR. Security Misconfiguration: debug or development mode appears to be enabled. Disable debug for production deployments.
This relates to A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "rexdivakar/HippocampAI", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/rexdivakar__HippocampAI/web_chat.py", "path": "web_chat.py", "start_line": 365, "end_line": 368, "rule_id": "owasp-a02-debug-mode-enabled", "severity": "ERROR", "owasp": ["A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration"], "owasp_tags": ["a02-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
GalsenDev221__map__package.json__L13-25__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: GalsenDev221/map
- File path: hf_repos_test/GalsenDev221__map/package.json
- Normalized path: package.json
- Lines: 13-25
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: dependency in package.json appears to use an unpinned or overly broad version (latest, wildcard, or caret range).
Code BEFORE:
},
"dependencies": {
"leaflet": "^1.9.4",
"next": "^14.0.4",
"react": "^18.2.0",
"react-dom": "^18.2.0",
"react-leaflet": "^4.2.1"
},
"devDependencies": {
"@types/leaflet": "^1.9.8",
"@types/node": "^20.10.6",
"@types/react": "^18.2.46",
"@types/react-dom": "^18.2.18",
"autoprefixer": "^10.4.16",
"eslint": "^8.56.0",
Code AFTER:
},
"dependencies": {
"leaflet": "^1.9.4",
"next": "^14.0.4",
"react": "^18.2.0",
"react-dom": "^18.2.0",
"react-leaflet": "^4.2.1"
},
"devDependencies": {
"@types/leaflet": "^1.9.8",
"@types/node": "^20.10.6",
"@types/react": "^18.2.46",
"@types/react-dom": "^18.2.18",
"autoprefixer": "^10.4.16",
"eslint": "^8.56.0",
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: dependency in package.json appears to use an unpinned or overly broad version (latest, wildcard, or caret range).
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "GalsenDev221/map", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/GalsenDev221__map/package.json", "path": "package.json", "start_line": 13, "end_line": 25, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
2MJ-DEV__BuyMeACoffee-Africa__package.json__L12-31__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: 2MJ-DEV/BuyMeACoffee-Africa
- File path: hf_repos_test/2MJ-DEV__BuyMeACoffee-Africa/package.json
- Normalized path: package.json
- Lines: 12-31
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: dependency in package.json appears to use an unpinned or overly broad version (latest, wildcard, or caret range).
Code BEFORE:
},
"dependencies": {
"@react-oauth/google": "^0.12.2",
"@supabase/supabase-js": "^2.76.1",
"@tailwindcss/vite": "^4.1.15",
"dotenv": "^17.2.3",
"i18n-react": "^0.7.0",
"lucide-react": "^0.546.0",
"node-fetch": "^2.7.0",
"react": "^19.1.1",
"react-dom": "^19.1.1",
"react-helmet-async": "^2.0.5",
"react-icons": "^5.5.0",
"react-router-dom": "^7.9.4",
"tailwindcss": "^4.1.15"
},
"devDependencies": {
"@eslint/js": "^9.36.0",
"@types/react": "^19.1.16",
"@types/react-dom": "^19.1.9",
"@vitejs/plugin-react": "^5.0.4",
"eslint": "^9.36.0",
Code AFTER:
},
"dependencies": {
"@react-oauth/google": "^0.12.2",
"@supabase/supabase-js": "^2.76.1",
"@tailwindcss/vite": "^4.1.15",
"dotenv": "^17.2.3",
"i18n-react": "^0.7.0",
"lucide-react": "^0.546.0",
"node-fetch": "^2.7.0",
"react": "^19.1.1",
"react-dom": "^19.1.1",
"react-helmet-async": "^2.0.5",
"react-icons": "^5.5.0",
"react-router-dom": "^7.9.4",
"tailwindcss": "^4.1.15"
},
"devDependencies": {
"@eslint/js": "^9.36.0",
"@types/react": "^19.1.16",
"@types/react-dom": "^19.1.9",
"@vitejs/plugin-react": "^5.0.4",
"eslint": "^9.36.0",
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: dependency in package.json appears to use an unpinned or overly broad version (latest, wildcard, or caret range).
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "2MJ-DEV/BuyMeACoffee-Africa", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/2MJ-DEV__BuyMeACoffee-Africa/package.json", "path": "package.json", "start_line": 12, "end_line": 31, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
2MJ-DEV__BuyMeACoffee-Africa
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "2MJ-DEV/BuyMeACoffee-Africa",
"stars": 16,
"created_at": "2025-10-23T07:36:48Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest-accepted",
"hacktoberfest-approved",
"hacktoberfest2025",
"hacktoberfest2025-accepted",
"i18n-react",
"javascript",
"react-dom-router",
"react-router",
"reatjs",
"tailwindcss"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 105,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 31,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 74
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 105
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 105
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 105,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 31,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 74
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 105
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 105
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo 2MJ-DEV/BuyMeACoffee-Africa, Semgrep findings changed from 105 to 105 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 105 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (74), owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (31).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "2MJ-DEV/BuyMeACoffee-Africa", "stars": 16, "created_at": "2025-10-23T07:36:48Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest-accepted", "hacktoberfest-approved", "hacktoberfest2025", "hacktoberfest2025-accepted", "i18n-react", "javascript", "react-dom-router", "react-router", "reatjs", "tailwindcss"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"]}
|
Kritikaadhikarii__Hactoberfest2025
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "Kritikaadhikarii/Hactoberfest2025",
"stars": 55,
"created_at": "2025-10-03T16:39:59Z",
"topics": [
"hackober-fest",
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest-2025",
"hacktoberfest-accepted",
"hacktoberfest2025",
"hacktoberfest2025-active",
"hacktoberfest2025-approved",
"hacktoberfest2025repo"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 1914,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 1357,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 549,
"owasp-a05-sql-injection-dynamic-query": 2,
"owasp-a07-password-equality-check": 3,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 3
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 1906,
"A05:2025 - Injection": 2,
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 3,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 3
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 1909,
"ERROR": 5
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 1914,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 1357,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 549,
"owasp-a05-sql-injection-dynamic-query": 2,
"owasp-a07-password-equality-check": 3,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 3
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 1906,
"A05:2025 - Injection": 2,
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 3,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 3
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 1909,
"ERROR": 5
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0,
"owasp-a07-password-equality-check": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a05-sql-injection-dynamic-query": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A07:2025 - Authentication Failures": 0,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A05:2025 - Injection": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a05-2025",
"a07-2025",
"a08-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo Kritikaadhikarii/Hactoberfest2025, Semgrep findings changed from 1914 to 1914 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 1909 WARNING-level and 5 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A07:2025 - Authentication Failures (+0); A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0); A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (1357), owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (549), owasp-a07-password-equality-check (3).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "Kritikaadhikarii/Hactoberfest2025", "stars": 55, "created_at": "2025-10-03T16:39:59Z", "topics": ["hackober-fest", "hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest-2025", "hacktoberfest-accepted", "hacktoberfest2025", "hacktoberfest2025-active", "hacktoberfest2025-approved", "hacktoberfest2025repo"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a05-2025", "a07-2025", "a08-2025"]}
|
abr4xas__cache-ui-laravel
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "abr4xas/cache-ui-laravel",
"stars": 72,
"created_at": "2025-10-01T22:27:56Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest-accepted"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 1,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 1
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 1,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 1
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo abr4xas/cache-ui-laravel, Semgrep findings changed from 1 to 1 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 1 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (1).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "abr4xas/cache-ui-laravel", "stars": 72, "created_at": "2025-10-01T22:27:56Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest-accepted"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"]}
|
dtinth__morse-rhythm__src_levels.ts__L108-108__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: dtinth/morse-rhythm
- File path: hf_repos_test/dtinth__morse-rhythm/src/levels.ts
- Normalized path: src/levels.ts
- Lines: 108-108
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
TO___UP__US___-WE____
OK_-END__-FIN_-BYE
`,
Code AFTER:
TO___UP__US___-WE____
OK_-END__-FIN_-BYE
`,
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "dtinth/morse-rhythm", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/dtinth__morse-rhythm/src/levels.ts", "path": "src/levels.ts", "start_line": 108, "end_line": 108, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
vahiiiid__go-rest-api-boilerplate__scripts_quick-start.sh__L136-136__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: vahiiiid/go-rest-api-boilerplate
- File path: hf_repos_test/vahiiiid__go-rest-api-boilerplate/scripts/quick-start.sh
- Normalized path: scripts/quick-start.sh
- Lines: 136-136
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
exit 1
fi
Code AFTER:
exit 1
fi
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "vahiiiid/go-rest-api-boilerplate", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/vahiiiid__go-rest-api-boilerplate/scripts/quick-start.sh", "path": "scripts/quick-start.sh", "start_line": 136, "end_line": 136, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
acesdit__ProjectHive__scripts_updateLeaderboard.js__L406-406__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: acesdit/ProjectHive
- File path: hf_repos_test/acesdit__ProjectHive/scripts/updateLeaderboard.js
- Normalized path: scripts/updateLeaderboard.js
- Lines: 406-406
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
---
Code AFTER:
---
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "acesdit/ProjectHive", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/acesdit__ProjectHive/scripts/updateLeaderboard.js", "path": "scripts/updateLeaderboard.js", "start_line": 406, "end_line": 406, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
AbhishekChamp879__Mind_Care__mind_care_frontend_src_utils_accessibility.ts__L179-179__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: AbhishekChamp879/Mind_Care
- File path: hf_repos_test/AbhishekChamp879__Mind_Care/mind_care_frontend/src/utils/accessibility.ts
- Normalized path: mind_care_frontend/src/utils/accessibility.ts
- Lines: 179-179
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval
- Severity: ERROR
- OWASP categories: A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures
- OWASP tags: a08-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Integrity failures related to untrusted updates, CI/CD pipelines, or data tampering.
- Semgrep message: Software/Data Integrity Failure: dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec/Function) can lead to remote code execution if inputs are not strictly controlled.
Code BEFORE:
const hexToRgb = (hex: string) => {
const result = /^#?([a-f\d]{2})([a-f\d]{2})([a-f\d]{2})$/i.exec(hex);
return result ? {
Code AFTER:
const hexToRgb = (hex: string) => {
const result = /^#?([a-f\d]{2})([a-f\d]{2})([a-f\d]{2})$/i.exec(hex);
return result ? {
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval' with severity ERROR. Software/Data Integrity Failure: dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec/Function) can lead to remote code execution if inputs are not strictly controlled.
This relates to A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "AbhishekChamp879/Mind_Care", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/AbhishekChamp879__Mind_Care/mind_care_frontend/src/utils/accessibility.ts", "path": "mind_care_frontend/src/utils/accessibility.ts", "start_line": 179, "end_line": 179, "rule_id": "owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval", "severity": "ERROR", "owasp": ["A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a08-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
noodles-sed__Simple-DSA
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "noodles-sed/Simple-DSA",
"stars": 43,
"created_at": "2025-10-04T00:39:51Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest-accepted",
"hacktoberfest-starter",
"hactoberfest2025"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 133,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 124,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 2,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 3,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 4
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 124,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 2,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 3,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 4
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 128,
"ERROR": 5
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 133,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 124,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 2,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 3,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 4
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 124,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 2,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 3,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 4
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 128,
"ERROR": 5
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 0,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a04-2025",
"a08-2025",
"a10-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo noodles-sed/Simple-DSA, Semgrep findings changed from 133 to 133 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 128 WARNING-level and 5 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0); A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0); A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (124), owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks (4), owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval (3).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "noodles-sed/Simple-DSA", "stars": 43, "created_at": "2025-10-04T00:39:51Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest-accepted", "hacktoberfest-starter", "hactoberfest2025"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a04-2025", "a08-2025", "a10-2025"]}
|
jamenamcinteer__react-native-vision-camera-ocr-plus
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "jamenamcinteer/react-native-vision-camera-ocr-plus",
"stars": 15,
"created_at": "2025-10-03T15:27:01Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 55,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 51,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 3,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 54,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 54,
"ERROR": 1
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 55,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 51,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 3,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 54,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 54,
"ERROR": 1
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a08-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo jamenamcinteer/react-native-vision-camera-ocr-plus, Semgrep findings changed from 55 to 55 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 54 WARNING-level and 1 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0); A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (51), owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency (3), owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval (1).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "jamenamcinteer/react-native-vision-camera-ocr-plus", "stars": 15, "created_at": "2025-10-03T15:27:01Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a08-2025"]}
|
Kritikaadhikarii__Hactoberfest2025__todo list_app.js__L8-8__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: Kritikaadhikarii/Hactoberfest2025
- File path: hf_repos_test/Kritikaadhikarii__Hactoberfest2025/todo list/app.js
- Normalized path: todo list/app.js
- Lines: 8-8
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval
- Severity: ERROR
- OWASP categories: A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures
- OWASP tags: a08-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Integrity failures related to untrusted updates, CI/CD pipelines, or data tampering.
- Semgrep message: Software/Data Integrity Failure: dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec/Function) can lead to remote code execution if inputs are not strictly controlled.
Code BEFORE:
var input = document.getElementById("todo");
input.addEventListener("keypress", function (event) {
if (event.key === "Enter") {
Code AFTER:
var input = document.getElementById("todo");
input.addEventListener("keypress", function (event) {
if (event.key === "Enter") {
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval' with severity ERROR. Software/Data Integrity Failure: dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec/Function) can lead to remote code execution if inputs are not strictly controlled.
This relates to A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "Kritikaadhikarii/Hactoberfest2025", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/Kritikaadhikarii__Hactoberfest2025/todo list/app.js", "path": "todo list/app.js", "start_line": 8, "end_line": 8, "rule_id": "owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval", "severity": "ERROR", "owasp": ["A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a08-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
Homies-Tech-Innovation__aethel__frontend_package.json__L12-23__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: Homies-Tech-Innovation/aethel
- File path: hf_repos_test/Homies-Tech-Innovation__aethel/frontend/package.json
- Normalized path: frontend/package.json
- Lines: 12-23
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: dependency in package.json appears to use an unpinned or overly broad version (latest, wildcard, or caret range).
Code BEFORE:
},
"dependencies": {
"@tailwindcss/vite": "^4.1.14",
"react": "^19.1.1",
"react-dom": "^19.1.1",
"tailwindcss": "^4.1.14"
},
"devDependencies": {
"@eslint/js": "^9.36.0",
"@types/node": "^24.6.0",
"@types/react": "^19.1.16",
"@types/react-dom": "^19.1.9",
"@vitejs/plugin-react": "^5.0.4",
"eslint": "^9.36.0",
Code AFTER:
},
"dependencies": {
"@tailwindcss/vite": "^4.1.14",
"react": "^19.1.1",
"react-dom": "^19.1.1",
"tailwindcss": "^4.1.14"
},
"devDependencies": {
"@eslint/js": "^9.36.0",
"@types/node": "^24.6.0",
"@types/react": "^19.1.16",
"@types/react-dom": "^19.1.9",
"@vitejs/plugin-react": "^5.0.4",
"eslint": "^9.36.0",
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: dependency in package.json appears to use an unpinned or overly broad version (latest, wildcard, or caret range).
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "Homies-Tech-Innovation/aethel", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/Homies-Tech-Innovation__aethel/frontend/package.json", "path": "frontend/package.json", "start_line": 12, "end_line": 23, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
nicofretti__DataGenFlow
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "nicofretti/DataGenFlow",
"stars": 21,
"created_at": "2025-10-01T20:41:17Z",
"topics": [
"data",
"data-generator",
"dataset-validation",
"datasets",
"hacktoberfest",
"syntetic-dataset"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 93,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 54,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 3,
"owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch": 26,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 1,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 8,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 55,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 29,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 8,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 85,
"ERROR": 8
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 93,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 54,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 3,
"owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch": 26,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 1,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 8,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 55,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 29,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 8,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 85,
"ERROR": 8
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch": 0,
"owasp-a09-swallowed-exception-no-logging": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency": 0,
"owasp-a10-assert-used-for-security-checks": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 0,
"A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions": 0,
"A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a10-2025",
"a04-2025",
"a09-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo nicofretti/DataGenFlow, Semgrep findings changed from 93 to 93 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 85 WARNING-level and 8 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0); A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures (+0); A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (54), owasp-a10-broad-exception-catch (26), owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms (8).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "nicofretti/DataGenFlow", "stars": 21, "created_at": "2025-10-01T20:41:17Z", "topics": ["data", "data-generator", "dataset-validation", "datasets", "hacktoberfest", "syntetic-dataset"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a10-2025", "a04-2025", "a09-2025"]}
|
alam00000__bentopdf__src_types_coherentpdf.global.d.ts__L386-386__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: alam00000/bentopdf
- File path: hf_repos_test/alam00000__bentopdf/src/types/coherentpdf.global.d.ts
- Normalized path: src/types/coherentpdf.global.d.ts
- Lines: 386-386
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms
- Severity: ERROR
- OWASP categories: A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures
- OWASP tags: a04-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Insecure design covers missing or weak security controls at the architectural or design level.
- Semgrep message: Cryptographic Failure: use of insecure or deprecated cryptographic algorithms (MD5, SHA1, DES, RC4, ECB mode, etc.). Use modern algorithms (e.g. SHA-256, AES-GCM) and follow current best practices.
Code BEFORE:
readonly pdf40bit: CpdfEncryptionMethod;
/** 128 bit RC4 encryption (1) */
readonly pdf128bit: CpdfEncryptionMethod;
Code AFTER:
readonly pdf40bit: CpdfEncryptionMethod;
/** 128 bit RC4 encryption (1) */
readonly pdf128bit: CpdfEncryptionMethod;
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms' with severity ERROR. Cryptographic Failure: use of insecure or deprecated cryptographic algorithms (MD5, SHA1, DES, RC4, ECB mode, etc.). Use modern algorithms (e.g. SHA-256, AES-GCM) and follow current best practices.
This relates to A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "alam00000/bentopdf", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/alam00000__bentopdf/src/types/coherentpdf.global.d.ts", "path": "src/types/coherentpdf.global.d.ts", "start_line": 386, "end_line": 386, "rule_id": "owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms", "severity": "ERROR", "owasp": ["A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a04-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
vahiiiid__go-rest-api-boilerplate
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "vahiiiid/go-rest-api-boilerplate",
"stars": 29,
"created_at": "2025-10-04T07:43:46Z",
"topics": [
"api",
"api-documentation",
"authentication",
"backend",
"boilerplate",
"clean-architecture",
"database",
"docker",
"docker-compose",
"go",
"golang",
"gorm",
"hacktoberfest",
"jwt",
"jwt-authentication",
"postgresql",
"rest-api",
"restful-api",
"starter-kit",
"swagger"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 103,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 79,
"owasp-a03-docker-latest-tag": 1,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 22,
"owasp-a04-hardcoded-crypto-key": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 80,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 22,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 103
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 103,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 79,
"owasp-a03-docker-latest-tag": 1,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 22,
"owasp-a04-hardcoded-crypto-key": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 80,
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 22,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 103
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a04-hardcoded-crypto-key": 0,
"owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint": 0,
"owasp-a03-docker-latest-tag": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A01:2025 - Broken Access Control": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a01-2025",
"a04-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo vahiiiid/go-rest-api-boilerplate, Semgrep findings changed from 103 to 103 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 103 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A01:2025 - Broken Access Control (+0); A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0); A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (79), owasp-a01-public-admin-endpoint (22), owasp-a03-docker-latest-tag (1).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "vahiiiid/go-rest-api-boilerplate", "stars": 29, "created_at": "2025-10-04T07:43:46Z", "topics": ["api", "api-documentation", "authentication", "backend", "boilerplate", "clean-architecture", "database", "docker", "docker-compose", "go", "golang", "gorm", "hacktoberfest", "jwt", "jwt-authentication", "postgresql", "rest-api", "restful-api", "starter-kit", "swagger"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a01-2025", "a04-2025"]}
|
mrjones2014__codesettings.nvim
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "mrjones2014/codesettings.nvim",
"stars": 26,
"created_at": "2025-10-02T02:51:08Z",
"topics": [
"hacktoberfest",
"lsp",
"neovim-plugin",
"nvim-lsp",
"project-setting-file",
"project-settings",
"vscode-settings"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 181,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 181
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 181
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 181
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 181,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 181
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 181
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 181
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo mrjones2014/codesettings.nvim, Semgrep findings changed from 181 to 181 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 181 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (181).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "mrjones2014/codesettings.nvim", "stars": 26, "created_at": "2025-10-02T02:51:08Z", "topics": ["hacktoberfest", "lsp", "neovim-plugin", "nvim-lsp", "project-setting-file", "project-settings", "vscode-settings"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"]}
|
mrjones2014__codesettings.nvim__lua_codesettings_util.lua__L429-429__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: mrjones2014/codesettings.nvim
- File path: hf_repos_test/mrjones2014__codesettings.nvim/lua/codesettings/util.lua
- Normalized path: lua/codesettings/util.lua
- Lines: 429-429
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
})
end
Code AFTER:
})
end
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "mrjones2014/codesettings.nvim", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/mrjones2014__codesettings.nvim/lua/codesettings/util.lua", "path": "lua/codesettings/util.lua", "start_line": 429, "end_line": 429, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
CelaDaniel__free-ai-resources-x
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "CelaDaniel/free-ai-resources-x",
"stars": 109,
"created_at": "2025-10-17T17:37:17Z",
"topics": [
"ai",
"artificial-intelligence",
"artificial-neural-networks",
"data",
"data-science",
"data-science-learning",
"data-science-projects",
"deep-learning",
"deep-neural-networks",
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest2025",
"machine-learning",
"machine-learning-algorithms",
"machinelearning",
"reinforcement-learning",
"research",
"supervised-learning",
"unsupervised-learning"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 9,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 9
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 9
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 9
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 9,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 9
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 9
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 9
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo CelaDaniel/free-ai-resources-x, Semgrep findings changed from 9 to 9 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 9 WARNING-level and 0 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (9).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "CelaDaniel/free-ai-resources-x", "stars": 109, "created_at": "2025-10-17T17:37:17Z", "topics": ["ai", "artificial-intelligence", "artificial-neural-networks", "data", "data-science", "data-science-learning", "data-science-projects", "deep-learning", "deep-neural-networks", "hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest2025", "machine-learning", "machine-learning-algorithms", "machinelearning", "reinforcement-learning", "research", "supervised-learning", "unsupervised-learning"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"]}
|
arya2004__beginner-python-mini-projects-hacktoberfest-2025__src_vidhirohira-fruits-game_readme.md__L37-37__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: arya2004/beginner-python-mini-projects-hacktoberfest-2025
- File path: hf_repos_test/arya2004__beginner-python-mini-projects-hacktoberfest-2025/src/vidhirohira-fruits-game/readme.md
- Normalized path: src/vidhirohira-fruits-game/readme.md
- Lines: 37-37
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
Code BEFORE:
---
Code AFTER:
---
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: unpinned Python dependency (no version specified). Pin dependencies to exact versions for reproducible builds and safer supply chain.
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "arya2004/beginner-python-mini-projects-hacktoberfest-2025", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/arya2004__beginner-python-mini-projects-hacktoberfest-2025/src/vidhirohira-fruits-game/readme.md", "path": "src/vidhirohira-fruits-game/readme.md", "start_line": 37, "end_line": 37, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
arya2004__leetcode-daily-october-hacktoberfest-2025
|
repo
|
You are a security-aware code assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware code assistant. Given Semgrep summaries before and after Hacktoberfest, analyze whether the repository's security improved or regressed, and explicitly state whether the repository is flagged in the latest scan.
Semgrep repository summary (JSON):
{
"repo": "arya2004/leetcode-daily-october-hacktoberfest-2025",
"stars": 18,
"created_at": "2025-10-01T09:23:20Z",
"topics": [
"cpp",
"hacktoberfest",
"hacktoberfest-accepted",
"hacktoberfest-starter",
"hacktoberfest2025",
"java",
"javascript",
"leetcode",
"leetcode-cpp",
"leetcode-java",
"leetcode-python",
"leetcode-solutions",
"python"
],
"before": {
"total_findings": 84,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 74,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 9,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 74,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 9,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 74,
"ERROR": 10
}
},
"after": {
"total_findings": 84,
"rule_counts": {
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 74,
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 9,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 1
},
"owasp_counts": {
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 74,
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 9,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 1
},
"severity_counts": {
"WARNING": 74,
"ERROR": 10
}
},
"diff": {
"total_delta": 0,
"rule_delta": {
"owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval": 0,
"owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements": 0,
"owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms": 0
},
"owasp_delta": {
"A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures": 0,
"A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures": 0,
"A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures": 0
}
},
"flag_status": "flagged",
"semantic": {
"owasp_tags": [
"a03-2025",
"a08-2025",
"a04-2025"
]
}
}
Answer:
|
For repo arya2004/leetcode-daily-october-hacktoberfest-2025, Semgrep findings changed from 84 to 84 (Δ +0). Overall security stayed roughly the same. In the latest scan there are 74 WARNING-level and 10 ERROR-level findings. This repository is **flagged in the latest Semgrep scan** because it still has active security findings. Top OWASP decreases: none. Top OWASP increases: A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures (+0); A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures (+0); A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures (+0). Key rule sources of current risk include: owasp-a03-unpinned-python-requirements (74), owasp-a08-dynamic-code-eval (9), owasp-a04-insecure-crypto-algorithms (1).
|
{"type": "repo", "repo": "arya2004/leetcode-daily-october-hacktoberfest-2025", "stars": 18, "created_at": "2025-10-01T09:23:20Z", "topics": ["cpp", "hacktoberfest", "hacktoberfest-accepted", "hacktoberfest-starter", "hacktoberfest2025", "java", "javascript", "leetcode", "leetcode-cpp", "leetcode-java", "leetcode-python", "leetcode-solutions", "python"], "flag_status": "flagged", "semantic_owasp_tags": ["a03-2025", "a08-2025", "a04-2025"]}
|
jamenamcinteer__react-native-vision-camera-ocr-plus__package.json__L74-98__present
|
snippet
|
You are a security-aware coding assistant.
Instruction:
You are a security-aware coding assistant. Given a code snippet (before/after) and associated Semgrep finding metadata, identify the security issue and explain why the original code is problematic. If the finding was fixed, describe how the changes make the code safer.
Context:
- Repository: jamenamcinteer/react-native-vision-camera-ocr-plus
- File path: hf_repos_test/jamenamcinteer__react-native-vision-camera-ocr-plus/package.json
- Normalized path: package.json
- Lines: 74-98
- Semgrep rule: owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency
- Severity: WARNING
- OWASP categories: A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
- OWASP tags: a03-2025
- Status: present
- OWASP short description: Injection flaws occur when untrusted data is interpreted as commands or queries (e.g., SQL, OS, LDAP).
- Semgrep message: Software Supply Chain: dependency in package.json appears to use an unpinned or overly broad version (latest, wildcard, or caret range).
Code BEFORE:
},
"devDependencies": {
"@commitlint/config-conventional": "^17.0.2",
"@eslint/eslintrc": "^3.3.1",
"@eslint/js": "^9.39.1",
"@react-native/babel-preset": "^0.82.1",
"@react-native/eslint-config": "^0.82.1",
"@types/jest": "^30.0.0",
"@types/react": "^19.2.6",
"commitlint": "^17.0.2",
"del-cli": "^5.1.0",
"eslint": "^9.39.1",
"eslint-config-prettier": "^10.1.8",
"eslint-plugin-ft-flow": "^3.0.11",
"eslint-plugin-prettier": "^5.5.4",
"jest": "^30.2.0",
"prettier": "^3.6.2",
"react": "19.1.0",
"react-native": "^0.82.1",
"react-native-builder-bob": "^0.23.2",
"react-native-vision-camera": "^4.5.1",
"react-native-worklets-core": "^1.6.2",
"standard-version": "^9.5.0",
"typescript": "^5.8.3"
},
"resolutions": {
"@types/react": "^19.1.0"
Code AFTER:
},
"devDependencies": {
"@commitlint/config-conventional": "^17.0.2",
"@eslint/eslintrc": "^3.3.1",
"@eslint/js": "^9.39.1",
"@react-native/babel-preset": "^0.82.1",
"@react-native/eslint-config": "^0.82.1",
"@types/jest": "^30.0.0",
"@types/react": "^19.2.6",
"commitlint": "^17.0.2",
"del-cli": "^5.1.0",
"eslint": "^9.39.1",
"eslint-config-prettier": "^10.1.8",
"eslint-plugin-ft-flow": "^3.0.11",
"eslint-plugin-prettier": "^5.5.4",
"jest": "^30.2.0",
"prettier": "^3.6.2",
"react": "19.1.0",
"react-native": "^0.82.1",
"react-native-builder-bob": "^0.23.2",
"react-native-vision-camera": "^4.5.1",
"react-native-worklets-core": "^1.6.2",
"standard-version": "^9.5.0",
"typescript": "^5.8.3"
},
"resolutions": {
"@types/react": "^19.1.0"
Answer:
|
The original snippet is insecure and is flagged by Semgrep rule 'owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency' with severity WARNING. Software Supply Chain: dependency in package.json appears to use an unpinned or overly broad version (latest, wildcard, or caret range).
This relates to A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures. This finding is still present in the latest scan; the after snippet still exhibits the insecure pattern. A safer approach is to refactor the code to avoid this pattern and follow secure coding best practices for this rule. The provided diff shows how the file changed between the two snapshots.
|
{"type": "snippet", "repo": "jamenamcinteer/react-native-vision-camera-ocr-plus", "path_raw": "hf_repos_test/jamenamcinteer__react-native-vision-camera-ocr-plus/package.json", "path": "package.json", "start_line": 74, "end_line": 98, "rule_id": "owasp-a03-unpinned-npm-dependency", "severity": "WARNING", "owasp": ["A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures"], "owasp_tags": ["a03-2025"], "status": "present"}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.