pixiewps
v1.4.2 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on pixiewps's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
An offline Wi-Fi Protected Setup brute-force utility - wiire-a/pixiewps
pixiewps --mode 1 -e <eitr> -p <pctr> pixiewps --mode 3 -e <E_S1> -r <RENONCE_A> -k <KEA><KSQ> pixiewps --mode 3 -m7 <M7_HEX> --m7-enc make OPENSSL=1 pixiewps --mode 3 <target> pixiewps --authkey --dh-small <target>
Summary
pixiewps is an open-source, GPL-licensed command-line tool written in C that bruteforces WPS PINs offline using the pixie-dust attack, exploiting weak or absent randomness in some access points' WPS implementations to recover a PIN in seconds or minutes rather than the hours needed by online brute-force. It is aimed at people auditing wireless networks for weak WPS configurations, and its README contrasts it with online-bruteforce tools like Reaver and Bully, which it is meant to be paired with rather than replace, since pixiewps works on data captured during a WPS exchange rather than attacking the AP directly. Since version 1.4 it can also recover the WPAWPAA Wi-Fi authentication and encryption standard maintained by the Wi-Fi Alliance, replacing WEP; cyber tools target it to audit wireless network credentials and key exchange handshakes.-PSK from a full passive M1–M7 capture on some devices. First committed in 2015 with nine contributors, it has seen only one commit in the past year, so treat it as stable but essentially dormant rather than actively developed.
An offline Wi-Fi Protected Setup brute-force utility - wiire-a/pixiewps
How pixiewps helps
Is the WPS PIN on this access point recoverable without hours of online brute-forcing?
takes the public keys, hashes, authentication key and nonce captured during a WPS exchange and bruteforces the PIN offline in seconds or minutes if the AP's randomness is weak enough
Which access points in my audit are actually vulnerable to the pixie-dust weakness?
works only when the captured exchange shows low or absent entropy in the enrollee's seed, so a target that doesn't crack quickly tells you it isn't exploitable this way
Can I get the WPA-PSK straight from a passive capture without ever sending a packet at the AP?
reconstructs the WPA-PSK from a full M1–M7 exchange on some devices, working entirely from captured data rather than interacting with the network
Do I still need Reaver or Bully running against the target?
only processes data those tools capture during the WPS handshake, so it settles the PIN offline afterward but never talks to the AP itself
What settings is the AP sending in that encrypted M7 message?
decodes the encrypted settings blob from M7, but only under the same mode that handles full passive capture
Is this AP's weak PIN a one-off or a pattern across my capture archive?
processes each capture's hashes and nonces independently, so replaying a set of saved captures shows which specific ones crack and which don't
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 pixiewps, 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 pixiewps 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.
- January 20181
- December 20172
- October 20171
- May 20151
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in wiire/pixiewps, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 1 +1 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 not measured open issues today
- Issues opened / month not measured
- Open backlog not measured
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 1,746
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.