Laurel
v0.8.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Laurel's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Transform Linux Audit logs for SIEMSIEMSecurity information and event management, collecting logs from many systems and correlating events to find suspicious activity. Analysts use it to investigate alerts and incidents. usage
laurel --logger /usr/local/bin/custom_alert_handler.sh
laurel --label-add 'cmd:arg' 'bash -i' --label-remove 'cmd:arg' 'ssh host'
jq 'select(.UID_GROUPS | contains("docker"))' laurel.log
laurel --dry-run
Summary
Laurel is an open-source post-processing plugin for Linux's auditd, released under the GPLv3, that converts raw audit events into enriched, structured JSON suitable for modern log pipelines. It runs on the host as an auditd plugin rather than a separate service, adding context such as parent-process lineage, SHA-256SHA-256A cryptographic hash function that turns data into a fixed 256-bit fingerprint. It is used to check integrity; hashing does not encrypt the original data. hashes of executed binaries, and prefix-matched environment variables, then writing that out over a UNIX domain socket to local log consumers or a SIEM. This suits detection engineers and SOCSOCA security operations center, the team or function that monitors threats, investigates alerts and coordinates incident response. Its work can be internal, outsourced or shared. teams who need Linux audit data usable enough to build reliable rules on, rather than raw syscall lines. Its README frames it as a rethink of existing auditd post-processors, built for better performance and usability rather than as a wrapper around one. With 17 contributors, 65 commits and 11 releases in the past year, and a release 35 days ago, it is under active development.
Transform Linux Audit logs for SIEM usage
How Laurel helps
Which process really launched this one, beyond the immediate parent?
attaches parent-process lineage to each event, naming the command, executable path and event ID of the ancestor so a detection rule can walk the chain without a separate lookup
Is this executed binary the one I expect, or has it been swapped?
computes a SHA-256 hash of the binary at execution time and includes it in the event, so the recorded hash can be checked against a known-good value
Can I capture specific environment variables without logging every credential that passes through a process?
matches environment variables by configured prefix, so only the named variables are pulled into the log rather than the full environment
Are my audit logs reaching my SIEM without a fragile file-tail step?
writes enriched events directly to a UNIX domain socket that local log consumers or a SIEM can read from, avoiding disk-based log shipping
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.
Screenshots
From the release notes, newest first. Click one to see it full size.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 Laurel, 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 Laurel 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
10 entries
No entries match these filters.
- July 20261
- March 20251
- January 20251
- December 20241
- May 20241
- February 20241
- January 20241
- May 20231
- December 20211
- September 20211
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in threathunters-io/laurel, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 3 −1 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 51 days first maintainer reply 3 hours
- Open backlog 7 of 89 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 7
- Contributors / month 1
- Commits / month 3
- Stars 862
- 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.