To check whether a library was security audited, search its repository and website for published audit reports, then verify that the findings were fixed. A report that exists but whose issues stayed open tells you little. The OpenSSF evaluation guide lists exactly this: find existing audits and confirm identified vulnerabilities were fixed.
What counts as an audit
An audit here means an independent review of the code or design by people outside the maintaining team, with a written result. It can be a paid engagement, a review funded by a foundation or sponsor, or a community review published openly. The OpenSSF guide also points to a list of security reviews it maintains.
It does not mean a badge, a scan result, or a statement in the README that the code is secure. Those can be useful signals, but they are not the same thing.
A step by step way to check
- Search the repository for words like audit, security review and assessment, in the docs folder, the README and the release notes.
- Check the project website and any security page.
- Read the report's date and the version it covered. A review of version 1.2 says less about version 4.0.
- Read the scope. Many audits cover only one component or one threat model.
- Read the findings table, then open the project's changelog or issues to see whether each finding was fixed, and in which release.
- Note which findings the maintainers disagreed with and why.
How to read what you find
| What you see | How much weight |
|---|---|
| Recent report, scope covers the part you use, findings fixed | High |
| Old report, version far behind current | Low to medium |
| Report covers a different component | Low for you |
| Report found issues, no sign of fixes | A warning |
| No report | Neutral, many good libraries have none |
The last row matters. Absence of an audit is not evidence of danger. Most small libraries are never audited because it costs money. In that case lean on other signals, such as the maintainer's response history, the project's test practice and how large the code surface is.
Do your own light review
When there is no audit and the library is important to you, do a limited review yourself. The OpenSSF guide suggests looking for signs of incomplete or insecure code, such as many TODO statements, looking for evidence of secure coding like input validation and parameterized statements, and reviewing the top problems from static analysis tools. Run the project's own tests to confirm they pass.
Keep the review proportionate to the exposure. A library that parses untrusted files in your public service deserves more of your time than a date formatter in an internal tool.
Quick check
Does having an audit report mean the library is secure?
No. It shows what reviewers found at one point in time, for a given scope and version. Check what was fixed and whether the report covers the version you use.
Is an unaudited library a bad choice?
Not by itself. Most libraries are unaudited. Use other signals and your own proportionate review.
Safeguard's SBOM and dependency scanning lists each library and known vulnerabilities per version, which gives you the starting inventory for deciding where an audit check is worth the time. A free scan takes a few minutes.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
