SECURITY REPORT · EXTENSHI SCAN
Type-J
Chrome extension·by ignatif
0
/ 100 SAFETY SCORE
RISKY
Several elevated signals. Read the findings before sharing this with your team.
Likely abandonedsafety score reduced by 30 points
- No update in over 5 years
Why this matters
An unmaintained extension keeps whatever flaws it shipped with, and a listing with users but no owner is an attractive target to buy and repurpose.
Automated analysis of publicly available code — not a professional security audit. It may produce false positives and does not prove an extension is unsafe or safe. Treat it as one signal among many. Disclaimer · Report an issue
How it ranks
Type-J's safety score vs every other extension we've scanned
Globally
46%of extensions carry more risk
Riskier ←→ Safer
Ranked against 369,936 extensions
In Lifestyle
47%of lifestyle extensions carry more risk
Riskier ←→ Safer
Ranked against 43,972 lifestyle extensions
Findings
14
median 12Lower is safer
Critical findings
0
median 0Severity = Critical
Permissions
1
median 1Declared in manifest
Active users
30
median 26vs category median
Findings breakdown
Automated security signal · 14 distinct issues across 6 severities
14
distinct issues
detected
detected
Scanners reported 16 raw occurrences; repeats of the same issue at the same location are merged here. The list below shows every occurrence.
Critical00%
High17%
Needs Review00%
Medium857%
Low214%
Info321%
Permissions requested
1 permission declared
No risky permissions
1 permission requested — none are flagged as risky.
Medium
Store local data
Can save data locally in the browser for persistence
Are you the author of Type-J?
Claim this extension to respond to findings, add context, and earn a verified badge on extenshi.io.
Add the badge to your README
Show Type-J's live security score on GitHub or in your docs
Scan performed by extenshi.io · Aug 6, 2026
Browser extensions made transparent.