above
v2.8 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on above's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Above is a network security sniffer that detects vulnerabilities in network equipment by analyzing traffic across up to 28 protocols without generating network noise.
above --record-pcap output.pcap above --analyze-pcap capture.pcap above --protocol all --802.1q_tag <tag_id> capture.pcap
Summary
Above is an open-source, free network sniffer that passively analyzes traffic to find vulnerabilities in network hardware, run as a command-line tool that requires root privileges to capture packets. Built on Scapy, it decodes up to 28 protocols spanning discovery protocols, dynamic routing, 802.1Q802.1QAn IEEE standard that adds a 4-byte VLAN tag to Ethernet frames, letting a single physical link carry traffic for multiple isolated networks. Cyber tools use it to capture or inject traffic on specific VLANs., name resolution, and SCADA traffic like S7COMM and ModbusTCP, and it can also analyze existing pcappcapA packet capture, recorded network packets that can be inspected later. Analysts use it to reconstruct communication and investigate protocol behavior or suspicious traffic. files rather than only live capture. Its README addresses pentesters and security engineers assessing network equipment for weaknesses such as exposed VRRPVRRPA network protocol (RFC 5798) that lets multiple routers share a virtual IP address, electing one as active so hosts keep a working gateway if the primary fails. credentials or rogue FHRP devices, work that otherwise spans several separate recon tools. It has had 13 contributors since its 2022 first commit, but activity has slowed to 6 commits in the past year and no release in the past 231 days.
Above is a network security sniffer that detects vulnerabilities in network equipment by analyzing traffic across up to 28 protocols without generating network noise.
How above helps
Which rogue devices are impersonating gateways on this network segment?
inspects captured VRRP, HSRP, and GLBP traffic for FHRP advertisements from unexpected sources, flagging the ones that don't match known legitimate routers
Are any first-hop redundancy protocols leaking credentials in plaintext?
decodes VRRPv2 packets on the wire and surfaces any authentication strings sent unencrypted
Which name resolution requests on this segment could be poisoned?
watches for LLMNR, NBT-NS, and MDNS broadcasts and reports the hosts still falling back to these protocols instead of DNS
What dynamic routing chatter is leaking across a segment that shouldn't see it?
decodes OSPF, EIGRP, and BGP frames from the capture and reports the routing exchanges visible to a passive listener on that segment
Is this switch port exposed to VLAN hopping or trunk negotiation abuse?
reads 802.1Q tags and DTP frames from the traffic to show whether trunking can be negotiated or VLANs enumerated from the port
Did an incident's packet capture contain any of these exposures, without needing to be back on site?
runs the same protocol decoding against a saved pcap file instead of a live interface, so a capture taken during an incident can be analyzed after the fact
Languages
Command line
No command matches.
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for above, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail above puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
6 entries
No entries match these filters.
- March 20251
- August 20241
- March 20241
- January 20241
- December 20231
- November 20231
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in caster0x00/Above, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 1 −2 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +1 joined · −2 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed not measured of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close not measured issues closed, last 12 months
- Open backlog 0 of 4 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 0
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 871
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.