Cyberbro
v0.15.3 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Cyberbro's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Cyberbro is an application that extracts IoCs from garbage input and checks their reputation using multiple services.
GOOGLE_CSE_URL=https://your-cse-compatible-endpoint/customsearch/v1 GOOGLE_CSE_URL=https://your-custom-cse-endpoint.example.com curl -s 'https://login.microsoftonline.com/contoso.com/.well-known/openid-configuration' DFIR_IRIS_SEARCH_NOTES=true DFIR_IRIS_SEARCH_NOTES=true DFIR_IRIS_SEARCH_NOTES=true DFIR_IRIS_SEARCH_NOTES=true cyberbro --engine Criminal IP <target> cyberbro --engine Alienvault <target>
Summary
Cyberbro is an open-source threat intelligence and indicator analysis platform that pulls IoCs out of messy pasted input and checks their reputation across a wide set of services in one pass. It runs self-hosted via Docker, with a web UI, a CLI, a browser extension, and an MCPMCPModel Context Protocol, a standard for connecting AI applications to external tools and data sources. A compatible server exposes capabilities an assistant can use through a common interface. integration for LLMLLMA large language model, a neural network trained on large amounts of text to recognize patterns and generate language. Applications use it for tasks such as answering, summarizing and writing code. workflows, so it fits teams that want it on their own infrastructure rather than as SaaSSaaSSoftware delivered over the internet and run on the provider's infrastructure, so the buyer pays a subscription instead of installing or operating anything locally.. It's aimed at 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. analysts and CTICTICyber Threat Intelligence: structured knowledge about adversaries — their tactics, infrastructure, and indicators — that tools consume to prioritize detections or enrich alerts with context. practitioners doing enrichment during triage, and its README cites Cybergordon and IntelOwl as inspirations, positioning Cyberbro as a lighter-weight alternative that avoids deploying a complex solution. Engines cover services like VirusTotal, AbuseIPDB, Shodan, MISP, AlienVault, and Criminal IP, configured through API keys per source. First committed in 2024, it has 14 contributors, nearly 700 commits and 17 releases in the past year, with a release only two weeks old.
Cyberbro is an application that extracts IoCs from garbage input and checks their reputation using multiple services.
How Cyberbro helps
Which of these IP addresses, domains, and hashes I pulled from an incident are actually malicious?
extracts the indicators from pasted raw text and queries VirusTotal, Shodan, AbuseIPDB, and the other configured engines in parallel, returning a reputation verdict per indicator per source
Which indicators in this pile of junk text are actually IoCs worth investigating?
parses messy, unstructured input and picks out the IPs, domains, URLs, and hashes automatically before any lookup happens
Has this IP been flagged for hosting sandboxed malware before?
checks the ScanMalware archive of scanned URLs and reports a verdict only for an address that was itself scanned, not one a scan merely redirected through
Is this ASN one we should treat as suspicious?
runs the Bad ASN Check engine against its background data sources and produces a risk score for the ASN rather than a single flag
Are these indicators already known to my own case management or threat intel repository?
searches DFIR-Iris and, when enabled, its case notes as well as its IoCs, so a match can surface from either place
Can I get these enrichment results into a report without leaving my terminal or copying between consoles?
exposes the same lookups through a CLI and API, so results can be pulled programmatically instead of read one indicator at a time in a browser
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 Cyberbro, 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 Cyberbro 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…
Coverage
Missing something? Tell us
What Cyberbro connects to, runs on and detects, read from its release notes and docs. So far: 1 updated integration.
1 change, tracked since Oct 19, 2026.
-
Oct 192026
updated OpenCTI integration — matching behavior and pagination
With OpenCTI 6.6.0
Cyberbro uses equality filters rather than OpenCTI's global full-text search: URL lookups intentionally extract the host (including subdomains), ignoring the URL path, port, query and fragment. They do not submit or scan the URL. Domains are lowercased, converted to IDNA and stripped of their trailing DNS dot. IP addresses are canonicalized and hashes are lowercased. Observable values are matched in their corresponding type and hash algorithm. A description containing an IOC, a parent domain, a different subdomain or a longer IP/hash is not an exact match. Exact object names and aliases, canonical simple STIX equality patterns, and indicators explicitly linked to a matching observable are included. Linked indicators do not need to use the IOC as their name. Standalone indicators with differently formatted or complex patterns and no observable relationship may not be found. Cyberbro does not interpret arbitrary STIX, Sigma or YARA patterns as IOC matches.
Other 2
Nothing first seen in this window. That doesn't mean Cyberbro shipped nothing, only that we found no record of it.
How we count
Read from 2 of 50 release notes and docs updates we hold for Cyberbro. "First seen" is the earliest note that names something; "last" is the latest. Our history may start partway through Cyberbro's life, so an old integration can show a recent first-seen date.
Each change counts once: "added 40 checks" is one line, so the numbers measure how often coverage moves, not how big the catalogue is or how well it detects.
Releases
50 entries
No entries match these filters.
- October 20261
- September 202611
- April 20263
- March 20261
- February 20262
- January 20262
- December 20252
- November 20251
- October 20251
- August 20251
- July 20251
- June 20254
- May 20255
- April 20255
- March 20252
- February 20255
- January 20253
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in stanfrbd/cyberbro, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 7 −3 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 2 +0 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 2 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 49% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 3.4 days first maintainer reply 25 hours
- Open backlog 28 of 82 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 28
- Contributors / month 3
- Commits / month 5
- Stars 687
- bugs 3%
- features 5%
- other 92%
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.No high or critical advisory in the lockfiles we checked.
We check the lockfiles its release builds images from: 1 Python. Go modules, other lockfiles and vendored code aren't checked.
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 →