Cycling Assistant est-il sûr ?

Cycling Assistant — Nerq Trust Score 58.9/100 (Note D). Score basé sur 5 independent trust signals.

Cycling Assistant est un software tool avec un Nerq Trust Score de 58.9/100 (D), basé sur 5 dimensions de données indépendantes. Sécurité: 0/100. Maintenance: 1/100. Popularité: 0/100. Données de plusieurs sources publiques dont les registres de paquets, GitHub, NVD, OSV.dev et OpenSSF Scorecard. Dernière mise à jour: n/a. Données lisibles par machine (JSON).

Cycling Assistant est-il sûr ?

Détail du score de confiance — Cycling Assistant has a Nerq Trust Score of 58.9/100 (D). Measured across 5 independent trust signals.

Analyse de Sécurité → Rapport de confidentialité de Cycling Assistant →

Quel est le score de confiance de Cycling Assistant ?

Cycling Assistant a un Score de Confiance Nerq de 58.9/100, obtenant la note D. Ce score est basé sur 5 dimensions mesurées indépendamment.

Sécurité
0
Conformité
87
Maintenance
1
Documentation
1
Popularité
0

Quels sont les résultats de sécurité clés pour Cycling Assistant ?

Le signal le plus fort de Cycling Assistant est conformité à 87/100. Aucune vulnérabilité connue n'a été détectée.

⚠Score de sécurité: 0/100 (faible)
⚠Maintenance: 1/100 — faible activité de maintenance
⚠Conformité: 87/100 — covers 45 of 52 jurisdictions
⚠Documentation: 1/100 — documentation limitée
⚠Popularité: 0/100 — adoption communautaire

Qu'est-ce que Cycling Assistant et qui le maintient ?

Auteurkoflox
CatégorieProductivity
Sourcehttps://github.com/koflox/cycling-assistant
Protocolsrest

Conformité réglementaire

EU AI Act Risk ClassMINIMAL
Compliance Score87/100
JurisdictionsAssessed across 52 jurisdictions

Alternatives populaires dans productivity

CherryHQ/cherry-studio
73.9/100 · B
github
ToolJet/ToolJet
76.5/100 · B
github
PostHog/posthog
60.3/100 · C
github
claude-task-master
69.8/100 · C
mcp
iOfficeAI/AionUi
70.0/100 · B
github

What Is Cycling Assistant?

Cycling Assistant is a software tool in the productivity category: Android app for cyclists that provides cycling destinations and tracks sessions.. Nerq Trust Score: 59/100 (D).

Nerq independently analyzes every software tool, app, and extension across multiple trust signals including sécurité vulnerabilities, maintenance activity, license conformité, and adoption par la communauté.

How Nerq Assesses Cycling Assistant's Safety

Nerq's Trust Score is calculated from 13+ independent signals aggregated into five dimensions. Here is how Cycling Assistant performs in each:

The overall Trust Score of 58.9/100 (D) is the weighted combination of these measured signals. It is a measurement, not a pass/fail or suitability judgment — weigh the individual signals against your own requirements.

Who Typically Evaluates Cycling Assistant?

Cycling Assistant is commonly evaluated by:

How to read the signals: Cycling Assistant's measured signals (sécurité 0/100, maintenance 1/100, documentation 1/100, community 0/100) are shown above. These are measurements, not a suitability judgment — weigh each signal against the requirements of your own use case and risk tolerance.

How to Verify Cycling Assistant's Safety Yourself

While Nerq provides automated trust analysis, we recommend these additional steps before adopting any software tool:

  1. Check the source code — Examiner le/la repository's sécurité policy, open issues, and recent commits for signs of active maintenance.
  2. Scan dependencies — Use tools like npm audit, pip-audit, or snyk to check for known vulnerabilities in Cycling Assistant's dependency tree.
  3. Avis permissions — Understand what access Cycling Assistant requires. Software tools should follow the principle of least privilege.
  4. Test in isolation — Run Cycling Assistant in a sandboxed environment before granting access to production data or systems.
  5. Monitor continuously — Use Nerq's API to set up automated trust checks: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=cycling-assistant
  6. Examiner le/la license — Confirm that Cycling Assistant's license is compatible with your intended use case. Pay attention to restrictions on commercial use, redistribution, and derivative works. Some AI tools use dual licensing or have separate terms for enterprise customers that differ from the open-source license.
  7. Check community signals — Look at the project's issue tracker, discussion forums, and social media presence. A healthy community actively reports bugs, contributes fixes, and discusses sécurité concerns openly. Low community engagement may indicate limited peer review of the codebase.

Common Safety Concerns with Cycling Assistant

When evaluating whether Cycling Assistant is safe, consider these category-specific risks:

Data handling

Understand how Cycling Assistant processes, stores, and transmits your data. Examiner le/la tool's privacy policy and data retention practices, especially for sensitive or proprietary information.

Dependency sécurité

Check Cycling Assistant's dependency tree for known vulnerabilities. Tools with outdated or unmaintained dependencies pose a higher sécurité risk.

Update frequency

Regularly check for updates to Cycling Assistant. Sécurité patches and bug fixes are only effective if you're running the latest version.

Third-party integrations

If Cycling Assistant connects to external APIs or services, each integration point is a potential attack surface. Audit all third-party connections, verify that data shared with external services is minimized, and ensure that integration credentials are rotated regularly.

License and IP conformité

Verify that Cycling Assistant's license is compatible with your intended use case. Some AI tools have restrictive licenses that limit commercial use, redistribution, or derivative works. Using Cycling Assistant in violation of its license can expose your organization to legal liability.

Cycling Assistant and the EU AI Act

Cycling Assistant is classified as Minimal Risk under the EU AI Act. This is the lowest risk category, meaning it faces minimal regulatory requirements. However, transparency obligations still apply.

Nerq's conformité assessment covers 52 jurisdictions worldwide. For organizations deploying AI tools in regulated environments, understanding these classifications is essential for legal conformité.

Best Practices for Using Cycling Assistant Safely

Whether you're an individual developer or an enterprise team, these practices will help you get the most from Cycling Assistant while minimizing risk:

Conduct regular audits

Periodically review how Cycling Assistant is used in your workflow. Check for unexpected behavior, permissions drift, and conformité with your sécurité policies.

Keep dependencies updated

Ensure Cycling Assistant and all its dependencies are running the latest stable versions to benefit from sécurité patches.

Follow least privilege

Grant Cycling Assistant only the minimum permissions it needs to function. Avoid granting admin or root access.

Monitor for sécurité advisories

Subscribe to Cycling Assistant's sécurité advisories and vulnerability disclosures. Use Nerq's API to get automated trust score updates.

Document usage policies

Create and maintain a clear policy for how Cycling Assistant is used within your organization, including data handling guidelines and acceptable use cases.

Situations That Warrant Independent Review of Cycling Assistant

Nerq's signals are one input. In the following situations, evaluate Cycling Assistant's measured signals against your own requirements before making a decision:

For each situation, compare Cycling Assistant's measured trust score of 58.9/100 and its individual signals against your organization's own criteria. Nerq does not assert whether Cycling Assistant is suitable for any particular use.

How Cycling Assistant Compares to Industry Standards

Nerq indexes over 6 million software tools, apps, and packages across dozens of categories. Among productivity tools, the average Trust Score is 62/100. Cycling Assistant's score of 58.9/100 is near the category average of 62/100.

This places Cycling Assistant in line with the typical productivity tool tool. It meets baseline expectations but does not distinguish itself from peers on trust metrics.

Industry benchmarks matter because they contextualize a tool's safety profile. A score that looks modéré in isolation may actually represent strong performance within a challenging category — or vice versa. Nerq's category-relative analysis helps teams make informed decisions by showing not just absolute quality, but how a tool ranks against its direct peers.

Trust Score History

Nerq continuously monitors Cycling Assistant and recalculates its Trust Score as new data becomes available. Our scoring engine ingests real-time signals from source repositories, vulnerability databases (NVD, OSV.dev), package registries, and community metrics. When a new CVE is published, a major release ships, or maintenance patterns change, Cycling Assistant's score is updated within 24 hours.

Historical trust trends reveal whether a tool is improving, stable, or declining over time. A tool that consistently maintains or improves its score demonstrates ongoing commitment to sécurité and quality. Conversely, a downward trend may signal reduced maintenance, growing technical debt, or unresolved vulnerabilities. To track Cycling Assistant's score over time, use the Nerq API: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=cycling-assistant&include=history

Nerq retains trust score snapshots at regular intervals, enabling trend analysis across weeks and months. Enterprise users can access detailed historical reports showing how each dimension — sécurité, maintenance, documentation, conformité, and community — has evolved independently, providing granular visibility into which aspects of Cycling Assistant are strengthening or weakening over time.

Cycling Assistant vs Alternatives

In the productivity category, Cycling Assistant scores 58.9/100. There are higher-scoring alternatives available. For a detailed comparison, see:

Points Essentiels

Questions fréquentes

Cycling Assistant est-il sûr ?
cycling-assistant avec un Nerq Trust Score de 58.9/100 (D). Signal le plus fort : conformité (87/100). Score basé sur Sécurité (0/100), Maintenance (1/100), Popularité (0/100), Documentation (1/100).
Quel est le score de confiance de Cycling Assistant ?
cycling-assistant: 58.9/100 (D). Score basé sur Sécurité (0/100), Maintenance (1/100), Popularité (0/100), Documentation (1/100). Compliance: 87/100. Les scores sont mis à jour lorsque de nouvelles données sont disponibles. API: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=cycling-assistant
Quelles sont les alternatives plus sûres à Cycling Assistant ?
Dans la catégorie Productivity, higher-rated alternatives include CherryHQ/cherry-studio (74/100), ToolJet/ToolJet (76/100), PostHog/posthog (60/100). cycling-assistant scores 58.9/100.
À quelle fréquence le score de sécurité de Cycling Assistant est-il mis à jour ?
Nerq recomputes Cycling Assistant's trust score as new data becomes available. Current: 58.9/100 (D). API: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=cycling-assistant
Puis-je utiliser Cycling Assistant dans un environnement réglementé ?
Cycling Assistant: 58.9/100 (D). Compliance: 45 of 52 jurisdictions. EU AI Act compliant. Evaluate against your own regulatory requirements.
API: /v1/preflight Trust Badge API Docs

Voir aussi

Disclaimer: Les scores de confiance Nerq sont des évaluations automatisées basées sur des signaux publiquement disponibles. Ce ne sont pas des recommandations ou des garanties. Effectuez toujours votre propre vérification.

Nous utilisons des cookies pour l'analyse et le cache. Confidentialité