eaphammer
v1.14.1 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on eaphammer's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
EAPHammer is a toolkit for performing targeted evil twin attacks against WPA2-Enterprise networks for use in wireless assessments and red team engagements.
Summary
eaphammer is an open-source command-line toolkit for running evil twin attacks against WPA2-Enterprise wireless networks, and it is free to use. It runs as a set of scripts on Kali or Parrot, generating certificates and standing up a rogue access point to harvest RADIUSRADIUSA networking protocol for centralised authentication, authorisation, and accounting of users connecting to a network, maintained under IETF standards. Cyber tools use it to integrate with existing enterprise identity infrastructure./AD credentials or pivot into a wireless network, with commands to strip ESSIDs, clone captive portals, and configure HTTPSHTTPSHTTP carried over an encrypted TLS connection. It protects traffic in transit and lets a browser verify the server's certificate. on the fly. It is built for red teamers and penetration testers doing full-scope wireless engagements rather than for defenders monitoring networks. First committed in 2017 and demonstrated at Black Hat Arsenal, it has drawn 36 contributors over time, but there have been no commits in the past year and only one release in the tracked window, nearly two years ago, so treat it as dormant rather than actively maintained.
EAPHammer is a toolkit for performing targeted evil twin attacks against WPA2-Enterprise networks for use in wireless assessments and red team engagements.
How eaphammer helps
Will a target's device connect to a cloned network automatically instead of the one it's supposed to use?
strips the ESSID so probing clients associate with the rogue AP transparently, without a user having to pick it from a list
Can a captive portal be reproduced convincingly enough to collect logins from users who connect?
clones an existing portal from a given site into a working template served over HTTPS, so victims see a familiar login page
Is a wireless engagement's rogue infrastructure going to look legitimate enough to pass casual inspection?
generates its own signed certificates and can serve the portal over HTTPS, matching what a client would expect from the real network
Which weaknesses in an organization's enterprise wireless authentication would show up under a live red-team test rather than a paper review?
runs the whole attack chain — certificate generation, rogue AP, portal cloning — as one toolkit, producing captured credentials as the practical evidence of exposure
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 eaphammer, 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 eaphammer 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
4 entries
No entries match these filters.
- September 20241
- October 20231
- December 20191
- September 20191
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in s0lst1c3/eaphammer, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 0 ±0 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 0 +0 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 0 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 40 of 145 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 40
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 2,566
- 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.
Choose a badge style and copy the code →