Cloudsplaining
0.9.1 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Cloudsplaining's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Cloudsplaining is an AWS IAMAWS IAMAWS Identity and Access Management is Amazon's service for controlling who and what can call AWS APIs, by attaching policies that allow or deny actions on resources. Cyber tools use it to scope credentials to least privilege. Security Assessment tool that identifies violations of least privilege and generates a risk-prioritized report.
cloudsplaining scan --input-file examples/files/example.json --exclusions-file examples/example-exclusions.yml --output examples/report/ cloudsplain --flag-all-risky-actions ./policy.json cloudsplaining scan --minimize cloudsplaining scan-policy-file ./role-policy.json --json cloudsplaining scan-policy-file --input-file my-policy.json
Summary
Cloudsplaining is an open-source, free command-line tool that scans AWS IAMIAMIdentity and Access Management — a framework of policies and services for controlling who can authenticate to systems and what resources they are authorized to use, letting cyber tools enforce least-privilege and audit access. policies for violations of least privilege and generates a risk-prioritized HTML report. It works across a single policy file or an entire account, and can assume a specified AWS role to scan across multiple accounts, flagging policies that permit data exfiltrationdata exfiltrationMoving data out of a system or organization without authorization. It can happen through network transfers, removable media or other channels., infrastructure modification, or resource exposure without restriction. It is built for cloud security and IAM teams auditing AWS permissions rather than for general infrastructure engineers, and its findings now link to pathfinding.cloud for privilege-escalation path context. It sits in the cloud IAM policy-analysis space rather than general cloud security posture managementcloud security posture managementCloud security posture management, checking cloud resources for risky settings and policy violations. It helps teams find exposed services, overly broad permissions and other configuration gaps.. First committed in 2020, it has drawn 38 contributors and 134 commits in the past year, with a release only 68 days ago.
Cloudsplaining is an AWS IAM Security Assessment tool that identifies violations of least privilege and generates a risk-prioritized report.
How Cloudsplaining helps
Which IAM policies in my account let a principal read secrets or exfiltrate data without any resource restriction?
scans all policies in the account (or a single policy file) for actions like reading objects, parameters, or secrets values and flags the ones with no resource constraint, prioritized by risk in the HTML report
Which of my policies would let someone modify infrastructure or expose resources to the outside world?
checks each policy for actions that modify infrastructure or that can alter resource-based policies, and lists them as separate risk categories in the report
Do any of my IAM policies grant a path to privilege escalation?
matches policy statements against known privilege-escalation paths and links each finding to pathfinding.cloud for the attack-path context
Which accounts in my organization have the same least-privilege gaps?
can assume a specified role to pull authorization details from multiple AWS accounts and scan them in the same pass, rolling the results into one report
Which findings are acceptable risks I don't want flagged every time?
takes a file of exclusions so named policies or principals are left out of future scans, keeping the report focused on unreviewed issues
Which IAM actions across my policies are missing resource-level restrictions altogether?
inspects every statement for actions granted without a resource constraint and surfaces them regardless of category, so overly broad grants aren't missed
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 Cloudsplaining, 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 Cloudsplaining 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
18 entries
No entries match these filters.
- June 20263
- October 20251
- September 20251
- September 20241
- October 20231
- August 20231
- February 20221
- January 20211
- December 20201
- October 20202
- September 20201
- August 20201
- May 20203
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in salesforce/cloudsplaining, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 6 +3 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 2 +1 joined · −2 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 50% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 91 days first maintainer reply 4.6 hours
- Open backlog 14 of 130 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 14
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 2,246
- features 25%
- other 75%
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.