fluxion
v6.32 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on fluxion's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Fluxion is a security auditing and social-engineering research tool that retrieves WPAWPAA Wi-Fi authentication and encryption standard maintained by the Wi-Fi Alliance, replacing WEP; cyber tools target it to audit wireless network credentials and key exchange handshakes./WPA2 keys from access points via phishing attacks.
./fluxion.sh --handshake ./fluxion.sh --custom-sites /home/user/my-phish-page/
Summary
fluxion is an open-source command-line tool for auditing WPA/WPA2 wireless networks through social engineering rather than brute-force cracking, and it costs nothing to use. It runs as a shell script on Kali or BlackArch, walking an operator through scanning for a target network, capturing a handshake with its Handshake Snooper attack, then launching a Captive Portal that spins up a rogue access point, a DNS server, and a jammer to deauthenticate clients and lure them into typing the WPA key into a fake login page. Setup is mostly manual, with an experimental auto-mode for some steps, which suits penetration testers and red teamers running client-authorized phishing exercises rather than anyone wanting a passive scanner. It descends from linset, aiming to fix that tool's bugs and extend it, and with 91 contributors, 112 commits in the past year and a release 31 days ago, it remains actively maintained.
Fluxion is a security auditing and social-engineering research tool that retrieves WPA/WPA2 keys from access points via phishing attacks.
How fluxion helps
Which access point in range is worth targeting for a credential-phishing test?
scans for nearby wireless networks and lists them so the operator can pick a live target before launching an attack
Can a captured handshake actually verify the password a client types into the fake login page?
the Handshake Snooper attack captures the real WPA/WPA2 handshake first, so the Captive Portal can check submitted keys against it before the exercise ends
Will clients actually connect to the rogue access point instead of the real one?
the built-in jammer deauthenticates clients from the original AP while a cloned rogue AP with matching identity sits nearby to draw them in
What will the client see when they land on the rogue network?
a spawned web server serves a fake login page prompting for the WPA/WPA2 key, with DNS redirecting all client requests to that page
Which devices connected to the rogue AP and what did they request?
the DHCP backend hands out leases and records client IP, MAC, and hostname in its lease file, giving a record of who joined during the exercise
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 fluxion, 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 fluxion 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 20261
- May 20181
- December 20171
- October 20171
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in FluxionNetwork/fluxion, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 4 +4 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +1 joined · −0 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 2.9 years first maintainer reply 19 hours
- Open backlog 4 of 1,033 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 2 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 4
- Contributors / month 1
- Commits / month 7
- Stars 5,930
- 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.