dockerscan
v2.1.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on dockerscan's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Scans Docker container images for CVEs, secrets, supply chain attacks, CISCISA nonprofit that publishes consensus-based configuration benchmarks and controls for hardening operating systems, cloud environments, and software; cyber tools use it as a ready-made compliance baseline. benchmark compliance, and runtime security issues.
dockerscan update-db dockerscan --scanners cis,secrets myapp:v1.0
Summary
dockerscan is a proprietary command-line scanner for Docker container images, checking them against CIS benchmarks and screening for supply-chain attacks, exposed secrets, CVEs, and runtime security issues. Despite the open-source-style README, the project's own license badge marks it proprietary, so licensing terms should be confirmed before adoption. It runs as a CLI, invoked per-image with flags to select specific scanners, filter by severity, or manage its CVE database, including optional CVSSCVSSCommon Vulnerability Scoring System, a method for describing a vulnerability's characteristics and severity. Its score is not the probability that attackers will exploit it. enrichment from the NVDNVDThe National Vulnerability Database, maintained by NIST, is the U.S. government repository of CVE records enriched with CVSS scores and metadata; cyber tools query it to drive vulnerability prioritization. API that degrades gracefully if NVD is down. It suits application security engineers and DevOps teams who need image scanning ahead of deployment rather than cluster-wide runtime monitoring.
Scans Docker container images for CVEs, secrets, supply chain attacks, CIS benchmark compliance, and runtime security issues.
How dockerscan helps
Which of my images ship known-vulnerable packages, and how confident is that match?
matches installed package versions against a CVE database using a dpkg-style version comparator, tagging each finding as vendor-confirmed or a heuristic name-only match with remediation caveats
Which of my images fail the CIS benchmark before they ever reach production?
runs the CIS checks against the image and lists every violation, so it can be caught before deployment rather than at runtime
Have I accidentally baked a credential or key into an image layer?
screens the image contents for exposed secrets and reports what it found and where
Is this image carrying a supply-chain compromise rather than just an outdated package?
runs dedicated supply-chain scanners over the image separate from CVE matching, surfacing tampering-style findings CVE checks would miss
How severe are the vulnerabilities I actually need to act on first?
filters findings down to a chosen severity level so only critical issues are shown, optionally enriched with CVSS scores pulled from the NVD API
Can I trust a CVE finding if the NVD service is unreachable when I scan?
falls back to the CVE database's own data when NVD enrichment cannot be reached, so the scan still completes and the finding still stands, just without the extra CVSS detail
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 dockerscan, 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 dockerscan 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
3 entries
No entries match these filters.
- July 20261
- June 20261
- November 20251
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in cr0hn/dockerscan, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 2 +2 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +2 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 12 days first maintainer reply 1.1 hours
- Open backlog 1 of 23 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 1
- Contributors / month 1
- Commits / month 2
- Stars 1,720
- 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.