Get the metadata from a Google Cloud Platform environment
88%
Total Score
healthy
Frequent releases, active contributors, and Google organization backing outweigh modest publishing and workflow hygiene gaps.
No build attestation or trusted-publisher identity is present, so consumers have less independently verifiable evidence connecting the artifact to its source build.
A prepare install-time script runs during installation, adding build-time behavior that consumers should account for, although this alone is not evidence of unsafe behavior.
Two of three publish accounts use the Google domain, consistent with the organization-backed repository. The stephenplusplus Gmail publishing account is an account-hygiene caution, not evidence of limited maintenance capacity.
The repository name does not match gcp-metadata and its README does not mention the package, so the linkage is less transparent than expected and could indicate a package-to-monorepo mapping gap.
All 71 analyzed action references are pinned, 17 workflows use read-only permissions, and there are no high- or medium-severity findings. The audit is incomplete because 1 of 19 workflows failed analysis, and two high-confidence low-severity findings install packages outside a lockfile; one workflow also has top-level write permissions.
We didn't find any vulnerabilities for this package.
| Dependency | Last Release | Score |
|---|---|---|
gaxios Version ^7.1.3 | — | — |
json-bigint Version ^1.0.0 | — | — |
google-logging-utils Version ^2.0.0 | — | — |
Connect your repositories to instantly see whether vulnerable or malicious packages exist in your codebase.
Free. No credit card required.

I consent to receiving marketing communications based on Aikido’s Privacy Policy.
SOC 2Compliant
ISO 27001Compliant
ISO 42001Compliant© All Intel data is openly available and commercially licensed.