Cortex
4.2.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Cortex's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Open source observable analysis platform that lets SOCs and CSIRTs analyze IPs, URLs, files, and hashes at scale via a web UI or REST APIREST APIA web API design style where clients interact with resources over HTTP using standard methods like GET, POST, and DELETE, giving cyber tools a predictable, language-agnostic way to integrate with external services..
job {
kubernetes {
imagePullSecrets = ["my-registry-secret"]
}
}
PUT /api/user/apikey?key={apikey}
Summary
Cortex is an open-source observable analysis platform that lets analysts query IPs, URLs, domain names, files, and hashes against many analyzers through one tool instead of several, and it costs nothing to run. It is self-hosted, used through a web interface for one-off or bulk lookups, or automated via its REST API, which suits SOCs, CSIRTs, and threat intelligence teams who need repeatable enrichment rather than manual lookups per tool. Its documentation positions it as a companion to TheHive and MISP, feeding analyzer output into case management or invoking MISP modules directly, though it also works standalone for teams that just need the analysis layer. Started in 2017 and still active, with 27 contributors and a release 52 days ago, though commit activity has slowed over the past year.
Open source observable analysis platform that lets SOCs and CSIRTs analyze IPs, URLs, files, and hashes at scale via a web UI or REST API.
How Cortex helps
What is actually known about this IP, URL, domain, file, or hash before I sink analyst time into it?
runs the observable against every configured analyzer at once and returns their combined verdicts and metadata in one pass instead of one lookup per tool
Which of the observables from this incident are worth escalating?
takes a bulk list submitted through the web interface and returns per-observable analyzer results, so the ones with hits stand out from the ones that came back clean
How do I get enrichment results into the case I'm already working instead of copying them by hand?
exposes the same analyzers through a REST API so a case management tool or script can submit an observable and receive the analyzer output directly
Can I pull MISP's own modules into the same workflow I use for everything else?
lets Cortex invoke MISP modules alongside its own analyzers, so an observable can be checked against both without switching tools
Who changed how an analyzer or responder is configured, and when?
records catalog configuration changes in the audit log, giving a trail of who altered analyzer or responder setup and when
Is a tool or service I need missing from what's available today?
if no analyzer covers it, a new one can be written and shared, but that only extends future runs, not answers already returned
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 Cortex, 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 Cortex 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.
- October 20261
- June 20261
- November 20251
- June 20251
- October 20221
- September 20202
- June 20191
- May 20192
- October 20181
- September 20181
- April 20183
- May 20171
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in TheHive-Project/Cortex, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 3 ±0 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +0 joined · −1 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close not measured issues closed, last 12 months
- Open backlog 160 of 448 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 160
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 1,626
- 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.