cameradar
v6.2.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on cameradar's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Cameradar scans RTSP endpoints on authorized targets and uses dictionary attacks to bruteforce their credentials and routes.
cameradar --backend masscan -t 192.168.1.0/24
cameradar version
cameradar -t targets.txt --skip-scan
cameradar -t 192.168.1.0/24 --ui tui
cameradar -t 192.168.1.0/24 --output m3u -o /tmp/streams.m3u
cameradar --scan-interval=10
scanner := cameradar.NewScanner(options)
streams, err := scanner.Scan()
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
attacks, err := scanner.Attack(streams)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
scanner.PrintStreams(attacks)
cameradar --file /path/to/hosts.txt
cameradar --subnet 192.168.1.0/24 --port 554
Summary
cameradar is an open-source, MIT-licensed command-line tool that scans RTSP endpoints on IP cameras and bruteforces their stream routes and credentials using dictionary attacks. It runs as a binary or Docker image against a subnet, an input file, or specific hosts and ports, and can hand discovery off to masscan before attacking the routes and logins it finds, producing a report of accessible streams and their device models. This puts it in the hands of penetration testers and IoTIoTA collective label for internet-connected physical devices — sensors, cameras, routers, appliances — that tools target because they run embedded firmware with limited patching and broad network exposure. security researchers checking exposed cameras on authorized targets, rather than SOCSOCA security operations center, the team or function that monitors threats, investigates alerts and coordinates incident response. Its work can be internal, outsourced or shared. teams doing passive monitoring. It sits in the exploitation category alongside other credential-bruteforce tools, built specifically for RTSP rather than as a general-purpose scanner. First committed in 2016 and still active, with 22 contributors and 89 commits in the past year, including a release just 26 days ago.
Cameradar scans RTSP endpoints on authorized targets and uses dictionary attacks to bruteforce their credentials and routes.
How cameradar helps
Which cameras on this network expose RTSP streams that were never supposed to be reachable?
sweeps the subnet, input file, or host list for open RTSP endpoints and lists every accessible host and port it finds
Which of these RTSP feeds are protected by nothing more than default or weak credentials?
runs dictionary attacks against each discovered host's login and reports the credentials that succeeded
Which stream routes on a camera aren't in the URL anyone gave me?
bruteforces common route paths against each host with dictionary attacks and reports the routes that respond
What device is actually behind that open stream?
reads the RTSP session to identify the device model producing the feed and includes it in the report
Can I reach the video, not just the login, on the cameras I found?
opens the discovered route with the recovered credentials and confirms whether the stream itself is accessible
Which exposed cameras and credentials do I need to hand to the client in my findings?
compiles a report of every host, route, credential pair, and device model discovered across the scan
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 cameradar, 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 cameradar 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
16 entries
No entries match these filters.
- June 20261
- February 20262
- January 20261
- October 20241
- March 20221
- May 20201
- January 20201
- December 20191
- May 20191
- November 20181
- November 20161
- October 20161
- May 20163
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in Ullaakut/cameradar, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 5 +4 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 2 +3 joined · −1 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 40% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 3.3 years first maintainer reply 7.9 hours
- Open backlog 15 of 257 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 15
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 5,211
- bugs 17%
- features 28%
- questions 9%
- other 46%
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 →