Before adding a library to a payments service, check that it is maintained, is a proper release, has a documented way to report vulnerabilities, fits your license rules, and has an owner on your team. Record the decision. A short intake checklist beats a long debate after the library is in production.
Why intake matters more here
A payments service sits close to money and sensitive data. The OWASP Software Supply Chain cheat sheet says to assess both the vendor and the specific offering before incorporating a component, and that the depth of analysis should match how critical the component is. A date formatting helper in an internal tool and a cryptography library in your ledger deserve different scrutiny.
The intake checklist
The OWASP guidance lists questions drawn from OpenSSF component evaluation. They translate directly into a one page form.
| Question | What to look at |
|---|---|
| Is the project actively maintained? | Recent commits and releases, responsiveness to issues |
| Is it known in its community? | Adoption, mentions in reputable projects |
| Is it mature? | Age and stability of the interface |
| Is this a release version? | Not an alpha or beta build |
| Are there enough maintainers? | More than one person with merge rights |
| Does it keep its own dependencies updated? | Look at its manifest and recent updates |
| Does it have tests, including security relevant ones? | Test folder and CI results |
| Is secure usage documented? | Security notes in the docs |
| Is there a vulnerability reporting process? | A security policy, and evidence that issues get fixed |
| Does the license fit your use? | Check against your license policy |
Add three questions of your own
- What does it do with the network, files and environment variables at install and run time? Payments code often holds secrets in the environment.
- How many transitive dependencies does it pull in? Each one is another maintainer you trust.
- Who on our team will update it, and how will they hear about new advisories?
The same source says that dependency monitoring should be automated and that SBOMs, produced and consumed in CI, give you insight into what you consume. Use the intake step to confirm the new library will appear in your inventory.
Certifications are a data point, not a verdict
For larger vendors, OWASP says that evaluation against third party assessments or certifications, such as FedRAMP, CSA or ISO standards, is a useful data point but must not be relied on exclusively. Treat a vendor's badge the same way you treat a project's star count.
Make the decision small and recorded
- The developer proposing the library fills the one page checklist in the pull request description.
- A reviewer from the code owners for the payment paths signs off.
- The pull request includes the lockfile change. OWASP recommends pinning dependencies to verified versions, commonly through lockfiles, so you do not pull in an unreviewed version later.
- A dependency review check on the pull request shows direct and transitive additions, release dates and known vulnerabilities. GitHub's dependency review documentation describes this view and says it includes changes to indirect dependencies in lock files.
- The decision and date go into your inventory.
What to do when the answer is "not sure"
Delay the decision, not the whole feature. Ask whether a smaller piece of code could be written in house, whether the standard library suffices, or whether the provider's own SDK is preferable and reviewed under your third party process. For payment provider SDKs specifically, see our existing checklist on third party SDK risk.
Review again on a schedule
Intake is a point in time. Revisit critical components once or twice a year. Look for maintainer changes, abandoned repositories and new advisories, and confirm the owner is still on your team.
Where Safeguard fits
Safeguard's SBOM and dependency scanning builds the inventory this checklist relies on, and reachability analysis shows whether a flagged flaw is actually called by your code. Policies and gates can run the check at the pull request. You can try a free scan at gold.safeguard.sh/scan.
Try it yourself
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen.
Open the inventory and look for how direct and indirect packages are listed side by side.
Quick check
Is a high star count enough to approve a library?
No. Popularity is one signal. Check maintenance, vulnerability reporting, test coverage and release status too.
Do I need this checklist for every small package?
Scale it to criticality. A cryptography or authentication library needs the full list. A trivial utility may need a quick look and an owner.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
