Look for five signs: recent activity, a team that answers reports, a clean record of known flaws, careful release habits, and a published way to report security problems. No single sign decides it. Together they tell you whether a package is cared for or quietly left to age.
TL;DR
- Abandoned packages are risky because nobody will publish a fix when a flaw is found.
- Check for recent releases, active maintainers, open flaws, and a security policy.
- Public tools can score these signals for you, but the scores are hints, not verdicts.
- Decide before you add a package, and recheck on a schedule.
- If a package is abandoned, plan a replacement or a fork instead of waiting.
Why does an abandoned package matter for security?
Definition: An abandoned or unmaintained package is one whose authors no longer publish updates or respond to problems. It may still work, but it will not get security fixes.
A package is code that other people wrote and you chose to trust. Trust has a shelf life. Think of a bridge. A new bridge with a regular inspection schedule is a safer choice than an old one that nobody has checked in years, even if both look fine from the road.
The OWASP Top 10 names this problem directly. Its description of vulnerable and outdated components says you are likely vulnerable if your software is unsupported or out of date. It also lists a specific weakness type, CWE-1104, called use of unmaintained third party components. And its prevention advice tells teams to monitor for libraries and components that are unmaintained or do not create security patches for older versions.
The risk is not that old code is magically bad. The risk is that when someone finds a flaw, there is nobody to fix it, so you carry that flaw until you replace the package.
What signals should I check?
Here is a practical checklist. You can do most of it in ten minutes by looking at the package's public page and its source repository.
| Signal | What to look for | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Recent releases | A release within the past year or so | Shows someone is still working on it |
| Recent commits | Changes made in recent months | Shows the project is alive |
| Responses | Questions and bug reports get answers | Shows a person is paying attention |
| Known flaws | Few or none that are unfixed | Shows the team fixes problems |
| Security policy | A document saying how to report a flaw | Shows the team expects reports |
| Release habits | Versions follow a clear numbering scheme | Makes upgrades predictable |
| Number of maintainers | More than one person with access | Reduces the risk of one person leaving |
| Archived notice | The repository is marked read only | A direct sign the project is finished |
A word on the archived notice. Some projects are formally archived by their owners, which means no more changes are accepted. If you see this on a package you depend on, treat it as abandoned.
Be careful with one trap. A package that has not changed in two years is not always abandoned. Some tiny, simple packages are finished and need no changes. The question is whether a flaw would get fixed if one were found. Responses and a security policy help you judge that.
Can a tool score this for me?
Yes, to a degree. The OpenSSF Scorecard project is an automated tool that checks a number of security related signals about open source projects and gives each check a score from 0 to 10. Its own description says it was built to help maintainers improve their practices and to help consumers judge whether their dependencies are safe.
Some of its checks match the signals above. Among the checks listed in its documentation:
- Maintained: asks whether the project is at least 90 days old and maintained.
- Vulnerabilities: asks whether the project has unfixed vulnerabilities, using data from the OSV service.
- Security Policy: asks whether the project contains a security policy.
- Dependency Update Tool: asks whether the project uses tools to help update its own dependencies.
- Signed Releases: asks whether the project cryptographically signs its releases.
- Code Review: asks whether the project practices code review before changes are merged.
- Pinned Dependencies: asks whether the project declares and pins its dependencies.
Please read the limits too. The Scorecard documentation says the checks are heuristics, meaning rules of thumb, and that there are false positives and false negatives. It also says it is not meant to be a one size fits all solution. So use the scores to start a conversation, not to end one. A low score means look closer. A high score does not mean you can stop looking.
If you want to know more about the vulnerability data behind one of those checks, see what is OSV.
How do I use this in real life? A step by step routine
- Before adding a package, spend ten minutes on the checklist above.
- Write down your decision. One line is enough: "Adopted, active project, two maintainers, security policy present."
- Check what it brings with it. A package that looks healthy may depend on weaker ones. See direct versus transitive dependencies.
- Recheck on a schedule. Once a quarter is a good start for key packages.
- Keep a short list of your critical packages. These are the ones where a failure would hurt most. Spend your time there.
- Decide what triggers a replacement. For example: no release in two years and an unfixed high severity flaw.
A worked example with invented numbers
The package and numbers below are invented to show the method.
You are choosing between two packages that parse calendar files. Call them "calparse" and "icalkit."
| Check | calparse | icalkit |
|---|---|---|
| Last release | 5 months ago | 3 years ago |
| Maintainers with publish access | 3 | 1 |
| Open unfixed high severity flaws | 0 | 2 |
| Security policy present | Yes | No |
| Scorecard style Maintained result | 8 out of 10 | 1 out of 10 |
Give each row one point if it favors a package. calparse wins every row, so it scores 5 out of 5 and icalkit scores 0. The decision is easy: choose calparse.
Now change one thing. Suppose icalkit is your existing package, already deep in your code. The same table tells you something different: you have an abandoned dependency with two open flaws. Your job is to plan the move, not to ignore it.
What do I do if a package I already use is abandoned?
You have four options, from quickest to most work.
- Pin and watch. Stay on the current version and monitor for new flaws. This is a short term holding move.
- Switch to a maintained alternative. Often there is a successor or a similar package.
- Use a community fork. Someone may have taken over the project. Check that the fork is itself healthy using the same checklist.
- Take it in house. If the package is small, copying the part you use into your own code can be cheaper than depending on it. You then own the maintenance.
Whatever you pick, write down the reason and a date to review it. The OWASP guidance adds that if patching is not possible, a team may consider deploying a virtual patch to monitor, detect, or protect against the discovered issue. That is a stopgap, not a fix.
Try it yourself
The demo below shows what happens when a vulnerable package has no upstream fix. Click through it and look for how Safeguard handles the request for a compatible fixed version and how each request becomes a tracked task.
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen.
Quick check
Is a package with no recent updates always abandoned?
No. Some small packages are simply finished. What matters is whether a reported flaw would get fixed. Look at how maintainers respond to issues and whether a security policy exists.
Is a high Scorecard score proof that a package is safe?
No. The project says its checks are heuristics with false positives and false negatives. Use scores as a prompt to look closer, not as a verdict.
How often should I recheck my important packages?
A quarterly check is a reasonable start for your most important packages, plus a check whenever a scan reports a new flaw in one of them.
How can Safeguard help with this?
Safeguard's SBOM and dependency scanning lists every package in a project and checks each against known vulnerabilities, so an aging package with open flaws shows up in your findings. Policies and gates let you set a rule, for example to block a pull request that adds a package with a known serious flaw. For packages that have no upstream fix, the demo above shows how you can ask for a compatible fixed version.
You can run a free scan at gold.safeguard.sh/scan. For background on how known flaws get named and scored, read what is a known vulnerability.
Sources
- OpenSSF Scorecard README and check list
- OWASP Top 10 2021, A06 Vulnerable and Outdated Components (source text on GitHub)
- OSV documentation
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
