Loading report…
← nittim
← nittimshared report
README badgeBadge for your project's readme fileREADME badge
[](https://nittim.com)[](https://nittim.com)Safe to ship. No blocking issues found.Safe to make live. No blocking problems found.Safe to ship. No blockers.
package.jsondevDependencies: "karma": "^3.1.4". OSV scanner reported GHSA-rc3x-jf5g-xvc5 (open redirect) and GHSA-7x7c-qm48-pq9c (XSS) against karma@3.1.4..travis.ymldeclares node_js: "6", "8", "10", "11" and package.json engines "node": ">=6.0". As of the 2026-08-22 audit date all of these Node lines are long past end-of-life.test.jsand test.node.js cover enable/disable/extend/namespace matching and formatWithOptions wiring, but there are no explicit tests for wildcard edge cases in matchesTemplate (src/common.js), browser useColors detection branches (src/browser.js), or the %o/%O/%j formatters' error paths.Full coverage — every eligible source and configuration file was audited.
2 other files aren’t code this audit reads — images, lockfiles, generated output, and similar non-source content.
Dependency manifests: 1 package root found, 1 scanned.
The audited snapshot is the well-known `debug-js/debug` npm package (v4.4.3) — a tiny, mature, extremely widely-used JavaScript logging utility. Across the 11 files shown, the code is clean, modular, and idiomatic, with a clear separation between shared logic (`src/common.js`), Node (`src/node.js`) and browser (`src/browser.js`) implementations. No hardcoded secrets were found and no infrastructure misconfigurations matched. The deterministic scanner flagged two MODERATE advisories against `karma@3.1.4`, which is a devDependency only and not shipped to consumers; reachability was not verified. The only real production-relevant observations are operational/hygiene items: an outdated Travis CI configuration targeting end-of-life Node versions (6–11), a very low declared engine floor (`node >=6.0`), and deliberately swallowed errors in storage access paths that are intentional by design. This is a library, not a service — it handles no user accounts, no PII stores, no network endpoints, and no persistent data, so most enterprise dimensions (auth, access control, data layer, HA/DR) do not apply. The code shows strong signals of long-lived human authorship (historical contributor list, idiosyncratic inline notes such as `XXX (@Qix-)`, layered comments). There is little defensible novel IP at stake. Overall this is a production-safe, healthy open-source library.
src/browser.jssave(), load(), and localstorage() each wrap access in try/catch with empty bodies and a comment "// Swallow // XXX (@Qix-) should we be logging these?".Weighted blend of 4 dimensions → ~88/100. Dimensions are weighted by importance (Security and Privacy weigh heaviest). Published figures are approximate; nittim's exact weighting and precise scoring are proprietary, while the verdict is computed on exact internal values.4 categories combine into ~88/100. Some categories count for more than others (Security and Privacy count the most). The published numbers are approximate; nittim's exact math is kept private, while the verdict itself is worked out from the exact internal numbers.Weighted blend of 4 dimensions → ~88/100 (Security and Privacy weigh heaviest). Published figures are approximate; nittim's exact weighting is proprietary. The verdict runs on exact internal values.
IP Protection is an independent IP-defensibility lens and is excluded from this blend.IP Protection (checking whether your ideas are exposed) is judged separately and isn’t
part of this combined number.IP Protection is judged separately, excluded from this blend.
Scores are a judgement, not a measurement: a re-audit of the same commit can land a few
points either side of this figure. The evidence underneath it is deterministic — the same
commit always yields the same committed-secret and vulnerable-dependency findings.Scores are a judgment call, not an exact measurement: checking the same saved snapshot of
your code twice can land a few points either side of this number. The evidence underneath
it is not — the same snapshot always turns up the same passwords-in-code and known-security-bug
findings.Scores are a judgment, not a measurement — a re-audit can land a few points either side. The evidence underneath is deterministic: the same commit always yields the same secret and vulnerable-dependency findings.
Each score is the model's overall assessment of the dimensions it covers, across everything it reviewed — not a tally of the findings in this report. Findings are the subset worth acting on, so a score can sit above or below what the listed findings alone would suggest.Each score is the AI's overall judgment of everything it reviewed in that category — not a
count of the problems listed in this report. The listed problems are the ones worth acting
on, so a score can sit above or below what they alone would suggest.Each score is the model's overall assessment across everything it reviewed — not a tally of this report's findings. A score can sit above or below what the findings alone suggest.
Verdict rationale — Why this verdict — Verdict rationale — This is a small, mature, single-purpose logging library with a clean, well-modularized architecture and a long history of real-world use. No hardcoded secrets, no infrastructure misconfigurations, and no application-security fundamentals (auth, access control, injection, credential handling) are in scope because the library exposes no network surface, no user data stores, and no privileged operations. The only flagged issues are low-severity hygiene items: a dev-only karma dependency with MODERATE advisories that are not shipped to consumers (reachability unverified), an outdated CI matrix and engine floor, and modest test coverage. None of these block production use of the package as published. The IP and AI-authorship lenses do not affect this verdict: there is little novel IP at stake and the code shows clear human-authored history.