azurehound
v3.1.1 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on azurehound's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
AzureHound is the official tool for collecting Azure data for BloodHound Community Edition and BloodHound Enterprise.
azurehound start --log-file /var/log/azurehound/azurehound.log --log-max-size 50 --log-max-backups 30 --log-max-age 7 --log-compress azurehound --user-agent "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; EnterpriseScanner/1.0)" list --tenant <tenant-id> azurehound list role-assignment-policies azurehound list group-members --select displayName,userPrincipalName,id
Summary
AzureHound is an open-source command-line collector, written in Go, that pulls data from Entra IDEntra IDMicrosoft's cloud-based identity and access management service, formerly Azure Active Directory, used by cyber tools to authenticate users and enforce access policies in Microsoft 365 and Azure environments. and AzureRM via the Microsoft GraphMicrosoft GraphMicrosoft's unified REST API for accessing data and services across Microsoft 365, Azure AD, and related cloud products, giving cyber tools a single authenticated endpoint to query users, emails, files, and sign-in logs. and Azure REST APIsREST APIsA convention for building HTTP-based interfaces where resources are addressed by URL and manipulated with standard verbs like GET, POST, and DELETE, giving cyber tools a predictable way to integrate with external services. to feed attack-path analysis. It runs as a single binary with no external dependencies on any OS, authenticating via username/password, JWTJWTAn open standard (RFC 7519) for encoding claims as a signed, optionally encrypted JSON object passed between parties. Cyber tools use it to verify identity and permissions without querying a central session store., refresh tokenrefresh tokenA credential used to obtain a new access token without signing in again. It is sent to the authorization service rather than used directly to call the protected API., Managed Identity, or an existing Azure CLI session, and writes results to stdout or a JSON file for ingestion elsewhere. It is built for red teamers and attack-path analysts rather than general cloud administrators, and its README identifies it as the BloodHound data collector for Azure, feeding BloodHound Community Edition or BloodHound Enterprise rather than standing alone. Recent releases add PIM and role-eligibility collection, federated identity credential enumeration, and User-Agent spoofing for blending into normal traffic during engagements. With 43 contributors, over a hundred commits in the past year, and a release 25 days ago, it is actively maintained.
AzureHound is the official tool for collecting Azure data for BloodHound Community Edition and BloodHound Enterprise.
How azurehound helps
Which identities in my Azure tenant can reach privileged roles through indirect paths like group membership or ownership?
walks Entra ID and AzureRM objects through the Graph and Azure REST APIs and writes every relationship — memberships, ownerships, role assignments — to JSON that BloodHound graphs into attack paths, so a chain of hops to Global Admin shows up even if no single hop looks dangerous
Which users, groups, or service principals hold Contributor rights over my management groups, subscriptions, or resource groups?
enumerates contributor role assignments at each of those three scopes separately and lists the principal holding each one, so overly broad AzureRM access is visible scope by scope
Which app registrations have federated identity credentials that could let an external workload impersonate them?
lists federated identity credentials configured on Entra ID applications, exposing workload-identity federation trust relationships that would otherwise only be visible inside the app registration blade
Which accounts are eligible for a privileged role through PIM rather than holding it outright?
collects unified role eligibility schedule instances and role assignment policies, showing PIM-eligible assignments and the rules governing activation so eligible-but-dormant privilege is counted alongside active grants
Can I collect this tenant's data without dropping a set of credentials on disk or standing out on the wire?
authenticates via a reused Azure CLI session or a Managed Identity for credential-free collection, and in red-team mode spoofs a corporate user-agent so the collection traffic resembles ordinary enterprise tooling
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 azurehound, 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 azurehound 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…
Website history
specterops.io, every changeSpecterOps's home page and 33 more pages as they looked each month from September 2021 to October 2026: 45 renders, 3 changes of tagline or palette. Step through them, play them, or put any two months side by side.
Website history is included with Researcher and Business.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →← → or h l a month · Shift a year · [ ] previous / next change · Space play · 1 2 3 page · T whole page · C compare · F full size
← → or h l the right month · Shift the left · S swap · W wipe · T whole page · Esc back
Rebranding timeline
Dates bound when a change appeared between captures. Possible rebrands are AI suggestions; a redesign alone does not establish a rebrand.
Releases
15 entries
No entries match these filters.
- September 20261
- July 20261
- April 20261
- March 20261
- January 20261
- October 20251
- May 20251
- April 20252
- February 20251
- September 20241
- October 20231
- September 20231
- April 20231
- September 20221
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in SpecterOps/AzureHound, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 17 +5 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 6 +5 joined · −3 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 3 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 38 days first maintainer reply 38 days
- Open backlog 13 of 40 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 13
- Contributors / month 2
- Commits / month 6
- Stars 961
- other 100%
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
Articles
2 articles · updated Nov 4, 2026Where azurehound turns up in what others publish: how-tos, attack reports that name it, and incident write-ups. A row says why it is here and quotes where the article names it; the link goes to the publisher.
Used in the wild 2
-
A Tale of Two SOCs: Insights From Two Red Team Assessments
However, the red team used this account to obtain access tokens for use with AzureHound and ROADrecon to gather Entra ID data for Organization B’s tenant.
2 more quotes
Resource Development Technique Title ID Use Obtain Capabilities: Tool T1588.002 The red team used publicly available tools, including AzureHound and ROADrecon.
…the organization’s cloud resources using the publicly available tools, including AzureHound 2 and ROADrecon, 3 to gather information about applications, their permissions, and their owners [ T1526 ] [ T1588.002 ].
-
Void Blizzard’s Infostealer Tactics Target Critical Sectors for Russian Espionage
AzureHound tool invocation detected Communication with possible phishing domain Communication with suspicious domain identified by threat intelligence Microsoft Entra ID Protection The following Microsoft Entra ID…
1 more quote
…the compromised organization’s Microsoft Entra ID configuration using the publicly available AzureHound tool to gain information about the users, roles, groups, applications, and devices belonging to that tenant.
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.
Choose a badge style and copy the code →