GitHub CodeQL

Whether static analysis is configured in this organization and which repositories it actually reaches; for each of those repositories, which query suite ran over which languages, whether the recurring schedule is still alive, when the analysis last ran and with how many rules in the run; and what the analysis found, split into what is still open and what a person closed by hand — each closure carrying who closed it, which of four fixed reasons they chose, and whatever they wrote down. The first two halves are the population and the proof that testing happened; the third is the half an assessment asks for, and read without the other two it cannot be told apart from the output of a scanner that never ran.

Which taint-tracking ruleset actually ran over this repository — the query suite, the languages selected, and the threat model that decides what counts as an untrusted source — together with whether the recurring scan is still scheduled, when it last ran per analysed language, and how many rules were in the run; and then the open findings in the injection families SI-10 is about, identified by the CWE tags the queries carry. The ruleset and the freshness are the load-bearing half: a finding names a sink that exists, but only the run record says the absence of findings means anything at all.

Whether the queries that find information disclosure through an error message or a stack trace ran over this part of the boundary — which languages were selected, whether the recurring scan is still scheduled and when it last completed — and then the open findings those queries produced, identified by the CWE tags the queries carry rather than by their names. The run record is the load-bearing half here as it is on every scanning recipe: a finding names a leak that exists, and only the record of a scan having run over a selected language makes the absence of findings a statement about anything.