Is E2B safe?
E2B scores 76.7/100 (Grade B), ranked #52 of 328 tracked open-source AI agent projects, on evidence coverage A (4 of 5 independent signal types).
The public evidence: no package-provenance attestation found;
OSSF Scorecard rates its supply-chain practices 6.3/10;
84% of recent commits are signed;
last pushed 2026-07-10. Every point is earned from checkable signals — never paid placement. How scoring works →
Quick Trust Read
Verdict
Strong public trust posture, backed by multiple independent signals.
76.7/100 · Grade B
Strongest Signal
Maintenance
19.6/20
Weakest Signal
Safety / Integrity
12.1/25
What Would Improve It
Publish package provenance or release attestations for stronger supply-chain evidence.
Maintainer Checklist
Raise Scorecard signalsCurrent OSSF Scorecard is 6.3/10. Tighten the weakest checks to improve public safety evidence.
Publish provenanceAdd package provenance or release attestations so users can verify where shipped artifacts came from.
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption. Grade B reflects the trust score band: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Evidence coverage A is separate — it grades how many independent signal types back the score (4 of 5), so a high score on thin evidence stays visible. Full methodology →
Signals refreshed2026-07-11 04:00 UTC·Repo last pushed yesterday
Rank Trend
2026-07-052026-07-11
Activity & Reach
Stars
12.9k
Forks
964
Last Push
2026-07-10
yesterday
Commits (4 wk)
84
Downloads (7d)
981,689
npm+pypi
HN mentions (30d)
1
Open Issues
25
Rank Change
▼1
was #51
Analysis
HVTrust Dimensions
76.7 / 100 · 100.0% confidence
Safety / IntegrityOSSF, provenance, signatures
12.1 / 25
Identity / ProvenanceListing and build link
10.8 / 18
TransparencyLicense and public checks
13.9 / 17
MaintenanceFreshness and commits
19.6 / 20
AdoptionStars and downloads
17.9 / 20
Activity Inputs
87.7 / 100
StarsRepository reach
24.7 / 30
FreshnessLast push recency
24.9 / 25
ActivityRecent commits
24.1 / 25
CommunityFork signal
13.9 / 20
Supply Chain Trust
Package Provenance
None
No package attestations found
OSSF Scorecard
6.3 / 10
OpenSSF Scorecard · scanned Jul 10, 2026
Signed Commits
84%
of last 100 commits verified
Binary-Artifacts10
Branch-Protection4
CI-Tests10
CII-Best-Practices0
Code-Review8
Contributors10
Dangerous-Workflow10
Dependency-Update-Tool10
Fuzzing0
License10
Maintained10
Packaging10
Pinned-Dependencies0
SAST10
Security-Policy0
Signed-Releases-1
Token-Permissions0
Vulnerabilities3
Is E2B safe?
Public supply-chain signals for E2B are strong: it has multiple independent trust indicators in place. This does not replace your own security review, but E2B carries less obvious unverified-evidence risk than projects with thin signals.
Does E2B publish package provenance?
No published build provenance is currently detected for E2B. This is common for open-source projects but means consumers cannot independently verify that the package on the registry matches the GitHub source.
Does E2B have an OpenSSF Scorecard?
E2B has an OpenSSF Scorecard score of 6.3/10. The Scorecard checks for branch protection, signed releases, dependency updates, fuzzing, code review, and other supply-chain hygiene items. See the full check breakdown on this page.
Is E2B actively maintained?
Actively maintained. The repository was pushed to within the last 1 day(s).
What license does E2B use?
E2B ships under Apache-2.0. A declared, OSI-approved license is one of the transparency signals HVTrust scores.
Are E2B's commits signed?
84% of the last 100 commits to E2B are verified-signed (GPG, SSH, S/MIME, or GitHub's signing flow). Signed commits help confirm that code was authored by who the commit claims.
Not a safety endorsement. HVTracker describes what public signals show, not whether a project is safe for your use case. Run your own security review before adopting in production.
These runtime-trust fields — detected from public repo docs and manifests — contribute a bounded adjustment to this project's HVTrust score alongside supply-chain evidence. The exact values each field can add or subtract are documented in the methodology → Compare this surface across every listed agent in the capability matrix →
MCP Server Support
medium confidence
Declared
MCP support appears present, but direct server implementation is less certain.
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Credential signal:
API keys or service config markers documented.
Tool / Plugin Surface
high confidence
2 tags
Broad capability areas detected.
browser
code
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
Package Provenance Drift
high confidence
Match
Published package metadata matches the tracked repo
Detailed evidence is not shown in the public view.
MCP signal live
External deps live
Tool / plugin surface live
Package provenance drift live
How this surface has changed
Detected changes to E2B's runtime surface and supply-chain posture, from daily public-signal snapshots. A change here means our detectors see something different — a genuinely changed capability, or better evidence of an existing one.
2026-06-05
Provider Added
Runtime surface grew — new detected provider dependency: E2B
2026-06-05
Mcp Status Changed
Detected MCP server support changed: none → declared
Maintain E2B?
HVTrust scores E2B from public signals only — we never contact maintainers first. If a signal is wrong, stale, or missing (provenance you publish, a Scorecard you run, signed releases), tell us and we'll review it. Corrections are public and tracked on GitHub.
