raven
v1.0.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on raven's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Raven is a Python tool that provides a self-contained file upload web server, enabling remote clients to send files via HTTP.
raven 0.0.0.0 8080 raven 192.168.1.5 443 --allowed-ip 10.0.0.1 --upload-folder /tmp/evidence --organize-uploads
Summary
raven is an open-source command-line tool that extends Python's http.server module into a self-contained file upload server, letting remote clients push files back to the operator instead of only pulling them. It runs as a single Python script from a terminal, installable via APT on Kali Linux or a plain git clone elsewhere, which suits red teamers and incident responders who need a quick drop point when protocols like SMBSMBA network file-sharing protocol developed by Microsoft that lets systems share files, printers, and named pipes over a network; cyber tools target or speak it because it is ubiquitous in Windows environments. aren't available. It adds IP-based access restrictions, per-client subfolder organization, filename sanitization, clobber protection, and detailed request logging on top of the standard library server. It sits in the reconnaissance and penetration-testing toolkit space alongside ad hoc uses of Python's http.server, rather than replacing dedicated file-transfer infrastructure. Built by three contributors since 2023, the project has had no commits in the past year, so treat it as stable but no longer actively maintained.
Raven is a Python tool that provides a self-contained file upload web server, enabling remote clients to send files via HTTP.
How raven helps
Which files did each client actually push to my drop server, and where did they land?
every upload is logged with the client's IP, timestamp, status code, and the saved file's final path, so a full transfer history is reconstructable from the log alone
Can a target host reach my listener from an unexpected address?
access can be restricted to a single IP, a comma-delimited list, or a CIDR range, and any connection outside that set is rejected before a file is written
Will two compromised hosts uploading files with the same name overwrite each other's data?
each incoming filename is checked against what already exists on disk, and a colliding name gets an incrementing number appended rather than replacing the original
How do I keep uploads from multiple targets sorted without building that logic myself?
files can be organized automatically into subfolders named after the uploading client's IP address, inside the working directory or a folder you designate
What happens if a remote client tries to upload a file with a crafted or malicious filename?
each filename is sanitized before it touches disk, stripping the upload of path or naming tricks that could otherwise write outside the intended folder
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 raven, 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 raven 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
1 entry
No entries match these filters.
- September 20231
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in gh0x0st/raven, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 0 −1 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 0 +0 joined · −1 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 0 of 1 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 0
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 29
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.