Is Cycling Assistant veilig?

Cycling Assistant — Nerq Trust Score 58.9/100 (D-beoordeling). Score gebaseerd op 5 independent trust signals.

Cycling Assistant is een software tool met een Nerq Vertrouwensscore van 58.9/100 (D), based on 5 onafhankelijke gegevensdimensies. Beveiliging: 0/100. Onderhoud: 1/100. Populariteit: 0/100. Gegevens afkomstig van meerdere openbare bronnen waaronder pakketregisters, GitHub, NVD, OSV.dev en OpenSSF Scorecard. Laatst bijgewerkt: n/a. Machineleesbare gegevens (JSON).

Is Cycling Assistant veilig?

Vertrouwensscore details — Cycling Assistant has a Nerq Trust Score of 58.9/100 (D). Measured across 5 independent trust signals.

Beveiligingsanalyse → Cycling Assistant Privacyrapport →

Wat is de vertrouwensscore van Cycling Assistant?

Cycling Assistant heeft een Nerq Trust Score van 58.9/100 met het cijfer D. Deze score is gebaseerd op 5 onafhankelijk gemeten dimensies, waaronder beveiliging, onderhoud en community-adoptie.

Beveiliging
0
Naleving
87
Onderhoud
1
Documentatie
1
Populariteit
0

Wat zijn de belangrijkste beveiligingsbevindingen voor Cycling Assistant?

Het sterkste signaal van Cycling Assistant is naleving met 87/100. Er zijn geen bekende kwetsbaarheden gedetecteerd.

⚠Beveiligingsscore: 0/100 (zwak)
⚠Onderhoud: 1/100 — lage onderhoudsactiviteit
⚠Naleving: 87/100 — covers 45 of 52 jurisdicties
⚠Documentatie: 1/100 — beperkte documentatie
⚠Populariteit: 0/100 — gemeenschapsacceptatie

Wat is Cycling Assistant en wie onderhoudt het?

Ontwikkelaarkoflox
CategorieProductivity
Bronhttps://github.com/koflox/cycling-assistant
Protocolsrest

Naleving van regelgeving

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

Populaire alternatieven in 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 beveiliging vulnerabilities, onderhoud activity, license naleving, and gemeenschapsacceptatie.

How Nerq Assesses Cycling Assistant's Safety

Nerq's Trust Score is calculated from 13+ independent signals aggregated into five dimensies. 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 (beveiliging 0/100, onderhoud 1/100, documentatie 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 — Bekijk de repository's beveiliging policy, open issues, and recent commits for signs of active onderhoud.
  2. Scan dependencies — Use tools like npm audit, pip-audit, or snyk to check for known vulnerabilities in Cycling Assistant's dependency tree.
  3. Beoordeling 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. Bekijk de 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 beveiliging 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. Bekijk de tool's privacy policy and data retention practices, especially for sensitive or proprietary information.

Dependency beveiliging

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

Update frequency

Regularly check for updates to Cycling Assistant. Beveiliging 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 naleving

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 naleving assessment covers 52 jurisdicties worldwide. For organizations deploying AI tools in regulated environments, understanding these classifications is essential for legal naleving.

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 naleving with your beveiliging policies.

Keep dependencies updated

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

Follow least privilege

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

Monitor for beveiliging advisories

Subscribe to Cycling Assistant's beveiliging 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 matig 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 onderhoud 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 beveiliging and quality. Conversely, a downward trend may signal reduced onderhoud, 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 — beveiliging, onderhoud, documentatie, naleving, and community — has evolved independently, providing granular visibility into which aspects of Cycling Assistant are strengthening or weakening over time.

Cycling Assistant vs Alternatieven

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

Belangrijkste conclusies

Veelgestelde vragen

Is Cycling Assistant veilig?
cycling-assistant met een Nerq Vertrouwensscore van 58.9/100 (D). Sterkste signaal: naleving (87/100). Score gebaseerd op Beveiliging (0/100), Onderhoud (1/100), Populariteit (0/100), Documentatie (1/100).
Wat is de vertrouwensscore van Cycling Assistant?
cycling-assistant: 58.9/100 (D). Score gebaseerd op Beveiliging (0/100), Onderhoud (1/100), Populariteit (0/100), Documentatie (1/100). Compliance: 87/100. Scores worden bijgewerkt wanneer nieuwe data beschikbaar komen. API: GET nerq.ai/v1/preflight?target=cycling-assistant
Wat zijn veiligere alternatieven voor Cycling Assistant?
In de categorie Productivity, higher-rated alternatives include CherryHQ/cherry-studio (74/100), ToolJet/ToolJet (76/100), PostHog/posthog (60/100). cycling-assistant scores 58.9/100.
Hoe vaak wordt de beveiligingsscore van Cycling Assistant bijgewerkt?
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
Kan ik Cycling Assistant gebruiken in een gereguleerde omgeving?
Cycling Assistant: 58.9/100 (D). Compliance: 45 of 52 jurisdicties. EU AI Act compliant. Evaluate against your own regulatory requirements.
API: /v1/preflight Trust Badge API Docs

Zie ook

Disclaimer: Nerq-vertrouwensscores zijn geautomatiseerde beoordelingen op basis van openbaar beschikbare signalen. Ze vormen geen aanbeveling of garantie. Voer altijd uw eigen verificatie uit.

We gebruiken cookies voor analyse en caching. Privacy