isr-evilgrade
open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on isr-evilgrade's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Modular framework that exploits poor software update implementations by injecting fake updates via a built-in web server and DNS server.
Summary
isr-evilgrade is an open-source exploitation framework, released free, that abuses poorly implemented software update mechanisms by serving fake updates through its own built-in web and DNS servers. It runs as a command-line tool, organized into modules that emulate the update-check behavior of a specific application, with commands to list modules, configure options such as the Sun Java module, and start the servers once a target's traffic is redirected via DNS or ARPARPA network protocol that maps IP addresses to MAC addresses on a local Ethernet segment, letting tools resolve layer-3 targets to layer-2 hardware addresses for packet crafting or host discovery. spoofing, DHCP spoofing, or similar hostname-manipulation techniques. It is aimed at penetration testers running man-in-the-middle engagements rather than defenders, and it sits in the update-hijacking corner of exploitation tooling, with pre-built modules for older, now-legacy client software. Development dates back to 2013 with 8 contributors, and there have been no commits in the past year, so its bundled exploits largely target outdated software versions.
Modular framework that exploits poor software update implementations by injecting fake updates via a built-in web server and DNS server.
How isr-evilgrade helps
Which client applications on my target network still trust an unsigned update check I can hijack?
ships with pre-built modules that emulate the update-check behavior of specific legacy applications, so pointing redirected traffic at it reveals whether that application's updater accepts a forged response
Once I've hijacked a victim's DNS or ARP traffic, what actually serves the fake update to them?
starts its own built-in web and DNS server that responds to the redirected lookups and hands back the module's crafted update payload
Which victims have already checked in against my fake update server?
keeps a server status view listing the virtual hosts it is answering for and logs each victim that has queried in
Is a given legacy application even worth targeting on this engagement?
its module list names the exact vulnerable version of each supported application, so checking a target's installed version against that list shows whether the update-check flaw applies
What options does a specific module expect before I can use it against a target?
shows the current configurable options for the loaded module, such as the payload path, so they can be set to match the engagement before the servers start
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 isr-evilgrade, 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 isr-evilgrade 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 infobyte/evilgrade, 2023-12 – 2026-11, as of 2026-11-03. 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 11 of 38 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 11
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 1,328
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 →