gcpwn
open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on gcpwn's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
gcpwn is a Google Cloud offensive security assessment framework for credential handling, service enumeration, artifact collection, and graph-based attack-path analysis.
Summary
gcpwn is an open-source, BSD-3-Clause-licensed command-line framework for offensive security assessments against Google Cloud, covering credential handling, service enumeration, artifact collection, and graph-based attack-path analysis, with limited Google Workspace enumeration included. It is run as a Python-based CLI tool, installable from PyPI, and is built for red teamers and cloud penetration testers rather than defenders or compliance staff. It sits in the exploitation category of cyber tools, generating BloodHound-compatible graph JSON for attack-path analysis and supporting unauthenticated API key scope checks and authenticated enumeration across projects, workflows more commonly split across separate GCP recon and privilege-escalation scripts. The project's README notes 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. assistance in parts of its development and advises reviewing behavior before operational use, and with two releases in the window tracked, it shows ongoing but modest maintenance activity.
gcpwn is a Google Cloud offensive security assessment framework for credential handling, service enumeration, artifact collection, and graph-based attack-path analysis.
How gcpwn helps
Which service accounts or roles give me a path to project takeover?
builds a BloodHound-compatible graph from enumerated IAM bindings and resources, so attack paths can be traced the same way as in an Active Directory graph, though it only reflects what was reachable with the credentials used to enumerate
Which GCP services and resources exist across every project I can reach, without touching each one by hand?
enumerates services concurrently across projects and pulls down IAM bindings and artifacts for each, in a single run instead of separate recon scripts
What can a bare API key actually reach before I authenticate with anything?
checks the key against a set of Google APIs unauthenticated and reports which scopes and services respond, showing exposure before any credential is supplied
What does an authenticated credential expose if I just walk through every project it can see?
runs a drive-through enumeration pass across all accessible projects, collecting resources and access data without requiring a per-project setup step
What can I see and touch inside this Google Workspace as an admin account?
runs the Workspace enumeration commands against the admin credential and reports the users, groups, and settings it can reach, within the limited coverage the project currently supports
Languages
Command line
| 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 gcpwn, 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 gcpwn 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
Nothing shipped since we started watching. Releases and docs updates land here as they happen.
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in NetSPI/gcpwn, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 1 ±0 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +0 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 131 days first maintainer reply 16 days
- Open backlog 0 of 4 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 0
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 312
- 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 →