hydra
v9.6 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on hydra's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Network login brute-forcing cyber tool supporting parallelized attacks across 50+ protocols including SSH, FTP, HTTP, and RDPRDPA Microsoft protocol that lets a user view and control a remote Windows desktop over a network, giving cyber tools a standard channel to audit, attack-simulate, or monitor Windows systems remotely..
hydra -l root -P /usr/share/wordlists/rockyou.txt ssh://<target> hydra -l user -P wordlist.txt http-post-form "/login:username=^USER^&password=^PASS^:2=302" hydra -l user -P pass.txt -M [2001:db8::]/64 ssh hydra -l admin -P passwords.txt -K ssh://192.168.1.1 hydra -l user -P pass.txt -t 16 smb2://10.0.0.5 hydra -l admin -P wordlist.txt http-post-form "/login:user=^USER^&pass=^PASS^:F=Login succeeded:S=302"
Summary
hydra is an open-source command-line tool for brute-forcing network login credentials, released under AGPLv3, and it runs parallelized attacks across more than 50 protocols including SSH, FTP, HTTP forms, SMBSMBA network file-sharing protocol developed by Microsoft that lets systems share files, printers, and named pipes over a network; cyber tools target or speak it because it is ubiquitous in Windows environments., RDP, and various database and mail services. It is aimed at penetration testers and security researchers who need to demonstrate weak or default credentials on a system rather than at defenders monitoring for such attempts. Its README describes it as filling a gap left by earlier login-attack tools that supported only a single protocol or lacked parallel connections, positioning it as a broader alternative to those single-purpose crackers. It can be pulled as a Docker image or built from source across Linux, Windows/Cygwin, BSD, and macOS. Development remains active, with 124 contributors, 71 commits in the past year, and a release roughly three months ago, most recently adding legacy SSH cipher support and updating its RDP module to freerdp v3.
Network login brute-forcing cyber tool supporting parallelized attacks across 50+ protocols including SSH, FTP, HTTP, and RDP.
How hydra helps
Which login on this service is actually using a default or weak password?
runs a wordlist or generated password set against the target with parallel connections and reports back the exact login and password pair that succeeded, with the attempt count and time taken
Can this old SSH server be tested with a modern client, or does it need legacy support?
negotiates deprecated ciphers and key-exchange algorithms such as arcfour or diffie-hellman-group1-sha1 so a server still requiring them can be attacked instead of rejected
Which of these credentials from a breach dump actually work against this system?
takes a colon-separated file of known logins and passwords and tries each pair against the target, reporting which combinations authenticate
Will this web login form actually reject bad credentials, or does it quietly accept them?
drives the HTTP form with generated or listed credentials, distinguishing failure responses including 403s from an actual authenticated session
Are the same weak credentials reused across different services on this host?
runs the same login/password lists against multiple protocol modules (FTP, SSH, IMAP, SMB, and others) against the same target so reused passwords surface across services
Does this SMB target's handling of expired credentials let an attack slip through undetected?
accounts for expired-credential responses from the SMB module so those replies are not misread as a valid or invalid login during a spray
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 hydra, 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 hydra 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.
- September 20251
- September 20221
- February 20221
- March 20211
- July 20201
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in vanhauser-thc/thc-hydra, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 17 +5 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 4 +3 joined · −3 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 2 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 9.8 days first maintainer reply 20 hours
- Open backlog 47 of 810 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 47
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 12,289
- features 3%
- other 97%
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
Articles
1 article · updated Nov 4, 2026Where hydra turns up in what others publish: how-tos, attack reports that name it, and incident write-ups. A row says why it is here and quotes where the article names it; the link goes to the publisher.
Tutorials & guides 1
-
A Detailed Guide on Hydra
Pentesters, this article is about a brute-forcing tool Hydra.
2 more quotes
Hydra is one of the favourite tools of security researchers and consultants.
In this article, I have discussed each option available in hydra to make brute force attacks in various scenarios.
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.