bruteshark
v1.2.5 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on bruteshark's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
BruteShark is a Network Forensic Analysis Tool that processes 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 to extract passwords, authentication hashes, and build network maps.
hashcat -m 13100 <bruteshark_output.txt> <wordlist> hashcat -m 7500 <bruteshark_output.txt> <wordlist>
Summary
BruteShark is an open-source network forensic analysis tool, free to use, that inspects PCAP files or live network captures to reconstruct sessions, build a network map, and extract passwords and password hashes, converting the latter into Hashcat format for offline cracking. It ships as a Windows desktop GUIGUIA graphical user interface, controls such as windows, buttons and menus. It lets people use software visually rather than entering commands. or as a command-line tool for Windows and Linux, letting users pick the interface that fits their workflow. It's aimed at security researchers and network administrators auditing traffic for credential exposure and weak points an attacker could exploit. It sits in the network-forensics space alongside packet-analysis and credential-extraction utilities, distinguishing itself by combining both in one tool rather than requiring separate ones. Development began in 2020 with 10 releases logged since, though there have been no commits in the past year, worth weighing before adopting it.
BruteShark is a Network Forensic Analysis Tool that processes PCAP files to extract passwords, authentication hashes, and build network maps.
How bruteshark helps
Which credentials were sent in the clear on this network?
reconstructs the TCP sessions in the capture and pulls out plaintext passwords from protocols that carry them unencrypted, listing them alongside the session they came from
Which devices were talking to each other and how?
walks every packet in the capture to build a map of hosts and their connections, showing who spoke to whom over which protocol
Are any accounts on this network protected by weak, crackable passwords?
pulls password hashes out of the captured authentication exchanges and converts them into Hashcat format so they can be run through an offline cracking attempt
What did a captured conversation between two hosts actually contain?
reassembles the individual packets of a TCP stream back into the original session so its contents can be read as a whole rather than packet by packet
What domains were hosts on this network resolving?
pulls the DNS queries out of the capture and lists what names were being looked up during the session
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 bruteshark, 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 bruteshark 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
14 entries
No entries match these filters.
- September 20213
- May 20211
- April 20211
- March 20211
- January 20213
- December 20202
- August 20203
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in odedshimon/BruteShark, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 0 ±0 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 0 +0 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 0 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 39 days first maintainer reply 39 days
- Open backlog 32 of 71 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 32
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 3,396
- 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
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 →