lonkero
v3.7.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on lonkero's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Lonkero is a web security scanner for penetration testing that detects vulnerabilities across 125+ scan modules with approximately 5% false positives.
lonkero scan --target https://example.com --ai lonkero --invisible-prompt-injection ./README.md
Summary
lonkero is an open-source command-line scanner for web application penetration testing, built in Rust, though the vendor also sells commercial licences with additional modules and reporting. It runs as a CLI tool aimed at security consultants and penetration testers rather than developer teams, testing for injection flaws, authentication and session weaknesses, and API access-control issues, while fingerprinting the underlying stack so it only runs checks relevant to frameworks like Next.js, Django, or Laravel. Its documentation claims a 5% false-positive rate against an industry range of 20-30%, and describes an intelligent mode that deduplicates endpoints and scores parameters by risk to cut scan time. It sits in the web vulnerability scanning space alongside tools pentesters already use for recon and exploitation. Development is active, with 841 commits and 20 releases in the past year from a small team of 6 contributors.
Lonkero is a web security scanner for penetration testing that detects vulnerabilities across 125+ scan modules with approximately 5% false positives.
How lonkero helps
Can an attacker log in as someone else or ride an old session on this application?
drives the authentication and session-handling flows with test cases for bypass, weak password handling, and session fixation, and flags where the flow lets it through
Which API endpoints are leaking data to callers who shouldn't see it?
walks the discovered API surface and checks each endpoint's access control by requesting data across roles/accounts, flagging the ones that return data outside the caller's scope
What is my actual technology stack, and which checks even apply to it?
fingerprints frontend, backend, server, and database technologies first, then limits the scan to the checks relevant to that stack instead of running every module blind
Which of my JavaScript libraries or components are running known-vulnerable versions?
inventories the client-side libraries and other components in use and flags the ones matching known security issues
How much of a scan's findings are actually worth investigating versus noise?
scores and deduplicates endpoints/parameters by risk before testing, which the documentation states keeps false positives to about 5% against a stated industry range of 20-30%
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 lonkero, 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 lonkero 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.
- February 20263
- January 20262
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in bountyyfi/lonkero, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 4 +4 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 2 +2 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 75% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 1.2 days first maintainer reply 1.1 hours
- Open backlog 0 of 4 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 0
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 1,097
- bugs 25%
- features 25%
- other 50%
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 →