qsslcaudit
open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on qsslcaudit's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
qsslcaudit is a tool to determine if an application using TLS/SSL for data transfers does this in a secure way.
Summary
qsslcaudit is an open-source command-line tool that audits how TLS/SSL clients behave when they connect to a rogue server, checking whether they accept self-signed or user-supplied certificates, tolerate weak protocols and ciphers, or fall for CVE-2020-0601-style CA spoofing. It costs nothing to use, and it runs as a standalone binary you point a client at, with a --loop-tests option for repeating checks or running other SSL server assessment tools against it. This makes it a fit for penetration testers and application security engineers who need to verify client-side TLS handling rather than server configuration, which is where most SSL scanners focus instead. Falling under web-app security and certificate auditing, it fills a narrower niche than general TLS scanners by testing the client, not the server. First committed in 2018 and kept by four contributors across ten tracked releases, though only one commit landed in the past year, so treat it as stable but slow-moving.
qsslcaudit is a tool to determine if an application using TLS/SSL for data transfers does this in a secure way.
How qsslcaudit helps
Does the client application my team ships actually reject a self-signed certificate, or does it silently connect anyway?
stands up a rogue TLS server presenting a self-signed certificate and reports whether the connecting client accepted or rejected it
Will this client trust a certificate I forge for a domain I don't own?
serves a certificate with a user-supplied common name and reports whether the client validated it as trusted
Is this client's TLS stack still willing to negotiate down to outdated protocols or ciphers?
offers weak protocol versions and cipher suites during the handshake and reports which ones the client was willing to accept
Would this client have fallen for the CVE-2020-0601 CA-spoofing trick?
signs a certificate with a user-supplied CA in the pattern of that flaw and reports whether the client accepted the forged chain as valid
Does the client's behavior hold up under repeated or varied handshake conditions rather than just one lucky run?
repeats the chosen test against the client continuously, or lets another SSL server assessment tool run against it, so a pass isn't based on a single connection
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 qsslcaudit, 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 qsslcaudit 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 gremwell/qsslcaudit, 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 not measured issues closed, last 12 months
- Open backlog 3 of 4 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 3
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 28
- 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
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 →