Salt Security
Salt Debuts First AWS WAF Managed Ruleset for AI Agent and API Protection (2026-08-04) commercialThe section your link pointed to isn't on Salt Security's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
curl -s "https://api.anthropic.com/v1/compliance/activities?limit=1" \ -H "x-api-key: <your-compliance-access-key>"
Summary
Salt Security is a commercial web-app-security tool that provides API discovery and runtime protection by adding managed rulesets directly to existing AWS WAFWAFA reverse proxy that inspects HTTP/HTTPS traffic and blocks requests matching known attack patterns such as SQL injection or XSS, sitting between clients and a web application to filter malicious input before it reaches the server. web ACLsACLsAn access control list, a set of rules allowing or denying operations for particular users, services or network addresses. It decides who can use a resource.. It is run via subscription through the AWS Marketplace and is for practitioners managing API security posture, and its documentation positions it alongside native WAF rules for AWS WAF environments. The project launched in 2016 and had its last release eighteen days ago.
Salt Security publishes no documentation we track, so the description above is written from general knowledge rather than the vendor's own words.
How Salt Security helps
Which of my API endpoints are exposed to attacks that standard WAF rules would not catch?
inspects API traffic for patterns like credential brute force, excessive GraphQL queries, SSRF, prototype pollution, and JWT anomalies, and flags the requests matching those patterns inside the existing web ACL
Which MCP servers are actually running against my Claude organization, and are any of them gone now?
polls Anthropic's Compliance API Activity Feed and lists each server's name, identity, status as active or removed, and first- and last-seen times in the inventory
Is anything talking to my MCP endpoints without authenticating first?
labels MCP traffic passing through the web ACL and blocks the requests that lack authentication, giving visibility into what was attempted
Can my existing detection stack tell which requests carried real user identity versus which were anonymous?
tags requests with attributes like auth headers, user identifiers, and GraphQL query contents so downstream analytics can key off them without re-parsing traffic
Where did a newly discovered MCP server come from, and can I trust that source?
records the discovery source such as Claude Connect alongside the server's status and lifecycle timestamps, so provenance is visible in the inventory rather than assumed
Languages
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
Five scores for Salt Security, 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 Salt Security 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…
Website history
salt.security, every changeSalt Security's home page and 29 more pages as they looked each month from September 2021 to October 2026: 42 renders, 7 changes of tagline or palette. Step through them, play them, or put any two months side by side.
Website history is included with Researcher and Business.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →← → or h l a month · Shift a year · [ ] previous / next change · Space play · 1 2 3 page · T whole page · C compare · F full size
← → or h l the right month · Shift the left · S swap · W wipe · T whole page · Esc back
Rebranding timeline
Dates bound when a change appeared between captures. Possible rebrands are AI suggestions; a redesign alone does not establish a rebrand.
Releases
3 entries
No entries match these filters.
- October 20261
- September 20261
- August 20261
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.