godoh
1.6 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on godoh's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
godoh is a proof of concept Command and Control framework, written in Golang, that uses DNS-over-HTTPSDNS-over-HTTPSA protocol that tunnels DNS queries inside encrypted HTTPS requests, hiding lookups from network observers. Cyber tools use it to evade DNS-based monitoring or filtering. as a transport medium.
godoh --provider quad9 <target>
Summary
godoh is an open-source, GPLv3-licensed command-and-control framework, written in Golang, that tunnels an agent's traffic through DNS-over-HTTPSHTTPSHTTP carried over an encrypted TLS connection. It protects traffic in transit and lets a browser verify the server's certificate. instead of raw DNS, using Google or Cloudflare as the DoH provider while still supporting traditional DNS as a fallback transport. It runs from the command line, with subcommands to start a C2 server, connect an agent, or send and receive files over the channel, and is aimed at red teamers testing whether an organisation's egress filtering and DNS inspection can catch a covert channel disguised as ordinary HTTPS. It is described as a proof-of-concept rather than an operational implant, useful for demonstrating the technique in an engagement rather than running it as infrastructure. Development has been quiet, with two contributors, seven tagged releases since 2018, and no commits in the past year.
godoh is a proof of concept Command and Control framework, written in Golang, that uses DNS-over-HTTPS as a transport medium.
How godoh helps
Will an egress filter that trusts HTTPS let this traffic through unnoticed?
routes agent traffic as DNS-over-HTTPS to Google or Cloudflare, so on the wire it looks like ordinary HTTPS to a trusted resolver rather than a raw DNS or custom C2 protocol
Can data still get out if outbound DNS is blocked but HTTPS is not?
falls back to traditional DNS as a transport when DoH is unavailable, letting the same agent be tested against either egress path
What does a covert channel over DNS-over-HTTPS actually look like to a blue team, end to end?
provides a working agent and server pair that establishes the channel, sends commands, and moves files, so the whole exchange can be captured and inspected on a real network
Which DoH provider should this engagement route traffic through?
lets the operator pick Google or Cloudflare as the resolving provider, so the test can match whichever provider the target's environment is known to trust or permit
How do I move a file across the network without opening a separate channel?
sends and receives files through the same DNS-over-HTTPS tunnel the agent uses, rather than a distinct file-transfer protocol
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 godoh, 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 godoh 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
5 entries
No entries match these filters.
- October 20191
- February 20191
- November 20181
- October 20182
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in sensepost/goDoH, 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 not measured of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close not measured issues closed, last 12 months
- Open backlog 1 of 8 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 1
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 807
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.