MalDet report — minitest-reporters/minitest-reporters

Summary

3 findings likely need attention. Most notable: Detected manual creation of an ERB template. Manual creation of templates may expose yo... (57% confidence).

Generated from finding counts. A plain-English summary was not available for this scan.

Risk, by type

MalDet scores two different questions separately, because they call for different responses: code can be badly written without being hostile, and hostile code is not always badly written.

Vulnerability

Low (5)

Insecure coding an attacker could exploit. Usually mistakes, and usually fixable in place.

Malicious pattern

Safe (0)

Signs the code may be trying to do harm: hidden payloads, credential access, persistence, exfiltration.

What each detector found

Detector	Looks for	High	Medium	Low	Total
semgrep	Insecure coding patterns across many languages	0	3	0	3

3 of 3 findings were rated more likely genuine than noise by the classifier.

Evidence

Identical findings are grouped, so a single rule firing many times takes one row. Ordered worst first. “Seen” is how many times that finding occurred.

Severity	Detector	Finding	Seen	Example location
medium	semgrep	Detected manual creation of an ERB template. Manual creation of templates may expose your application to server-side template injection (SSTI) or cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks if user input is used to create the template. Instead, create a '.erb' template file and use 'render'.	1	/lib/minitest/reporters/html_reporter.rb:97
medium	semgrep	GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: ac	2	/.github/workflows/ci.yml:31

How to read this report

This is a static scan. The code was read, never executed. Behaviour that only appears at runtime is outside what any of these detectors can see.
Findings are not all equally real. A classifier rates each finding on how likely it is to be genuine rather than noise, and that rating weights the scores. Measured against a hand-reviewed sample it reached precision 0.52 and recall 0.62 — useful for ranking, not a verdict on any single finding.
A high score is not proof of malice. Security tools, penetration-testing frameworks and malware research repositories contain the same patterns as real malware by design. The two risk types above exist to keep that distinction visible.
Absence of findings is not proof of safety. A detector that is not installed, or a language none of them parse, produces silence rather than a warning.
This scan is a snapshot. The repository may have changed since 24 September 2026.