DockSec
v2026.9.21 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on DockSec's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
DockSec is an OWASPOWASPA nonprofit foundation that publishes open standards, guides, and ranked vulnerability lists—most famously the OWASP Top 10—giving cyber tools a vendor-neutral benchmark to test or report against. Lab Project AI-powered Docker security scanner that explains vulnerabilities in plain English.
docksec scan --fix <target> docksec scan --format markdown <target> docksec scan --fix . docksec scan --fix <target> docksec scan --format markdown <target> docksec scan --format markdown docker-compose.yml docksec scan --fix docker-compose.yml docksec scan myapp:latest --fix docksec scan myapp:latest --format markdown > docksec-report.md docksec --log-file /var/log/docksec/scan.log scan docksec scan --image myapp:latest --sbom --offline docksec install-skill ./skills/custom-vuln-skill docksec scan --severity critical --fail-on 1 docksec scan --format sarif --output-dir ./reports docksec scan --update-baseline docksec scan --smart-model-selection docksec --scan-only Dockerfile
Summary
DockSec is an open-source static analysis cyber tool that scans Dockerfiles, images, and Compose files for security vulnerabilities and suggests remediation actions. It runs as a CLI tool and is aimed at application developers. Its documentation positions it alongside vulnerability scanners and build linters, and it supports multi-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. providers for analysis. The project has had 233 commits in the past year and three releases within the tracked period.
DockSec is an OWASP Lab Project AI-powered Docker security scanner that explains vulnerabilities in plain English.
How DockSec helps
Which Dockerfile or image contains security vulnerabilities?
Scans Dockerfiles and images for security vulnerabilities and suggests remediation actions.
How do I scan a multi-service application defined in a compose file?
Scans Docker Compose projects and services for security vulnerabilities.
Can I generate a report from my scan results that displays well in CI/CD logs or pull requests?
Emits a report formatted for native rendering in CI/CD environments.
What are the steps to fix the issues found during a scan?
Provides actionable remediation commands alongside each finding that can be used to fix issues.
Which sources can be used to analyze the container image for vulnerabilities?
Supports analysis using multiple Large Language Model providers.
How can I prioritize the findings I get so I know what to fix first?
Scans and provides a prioritized list of issues, such as those scored by EPSS.
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 DockSec, 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 DockSec 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
15 entries
No entries match these filters.
- September 20265
- August 20261
- July 20263
- June 20262
- May 20262
- April 20261
- February 20261
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in OWASP/DockSec, 2023-12 – 2026-11, as of 2026-11-03. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 19 +14 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +0 joined · −2 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 37% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 52 days first maintainer reply 38 days
- Open backlog 5 of 27 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 5
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars not measured
- bugs 11%
- features 52%
- docs 4%
- other 33%
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.