mitm6
open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on mitm6's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
mitm6 is a pentesting tool that exploits the default configuration of Windows to take over the default DNS server via DHCPv6.
Summary
mitm6 is an open-source command-line tool that abuses IPv6IPv6The current version of the Internet Protocol, standardized by the IETF, using 128-bit addresses to replace the exhausted IPv4 space. Cyber tools target it because modern networks run dual-stack or IPv6-only. network configuration by answering DHCPv6 queries to make itself the default IPv6 DNS server on a network segment, then uses that position to redirect traffic for name resolution and credential relay. It runs as a CLI, launched directly on an attacker-controlled or engagement laptop, with flags to set a relay target for triggering KerberosKerberosA network authentication protocol that uses tickets issued by a trusted service. Users and services can prove their identities without sending a password to each application. authentication and to filter which hosts it responds to via hostname allowlists or blocklists. It is built for red teamers and penetration testers running internal network engagements rather than for defenders, and it sits in the network exploitation space, specifically abuse of default IPv6 behavior on networks still configured for IPv4. First committed in 2018 with 9 contributors, the project has had no commits in the past year, so treat it as stable rather than actively developed.
mitm6 is a pentesting tool that exploits the default configuration of Windows to take over the default DNS server via DHCPv6.
mitm6 publishes no documentation we track, so the description above is written from general knowledge rather than the vendor's own words.
How mitm6 helps
Which Windows hosts on this segment will trust a rogue DNS server without anyone noticing?
answers every DHCPv6 solicitation on the segment and sets itself as the default IPv6 DNS server, since most networks run IPv6 unconfigured and Windows prefers it over IPv4 by default
Can I force a domain-joined machine to authenticate to a host I control?
hands out its own hostname as the fake DNS server so name lookups resolve to it, then points the target at a chosen relay to trigger Kerberos or NTLM authentication toward that host
Which specific machines should I pull into this attack, and which should I leave alone?
filters DHCPv6 responses by FQDN using an allowlist or blocklist, so only named hosts get the spoofed DNS answer while the rest of the segment is left untouched
Is this new-protocol traffic going to break other things on the network while I run my engagement?
limits its response scope to the hosts named in its filters, so machines outside that list keep resolving names normally instead of being redirected
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 mitm6, 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 mitm6 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 dirkjanm/mitm6, 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 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close < 1 day first maintainer reply 11 hours
- Open backlog 14 of 34 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 14
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 1,921
- 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.
Choose a badge style and copy the code →