sippts
v4.2.1 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on sippts's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
SIPPTS is a set of scripts, programmed in Python, for auditing VoIP servers and devices using the SIP protocol.
Summary
sippts is an open-source command-line toolset, written in Python, for auditing VoIP servers and devices that speak the SIP protocol; it is free to use, modify and distribute. It bundles modules for scanning networks and port ranges, enumerating extensions, cracking credentials, sniffing and spoofing traffic, and pulling SIP, RTP and RTP-to-WAV data out of PCAPPCAPA packet capture, recorded network packets that can be inspected later. Analysts use it to reconstruct communication and investigate protocol behavior or suspicious traffic. captures, run individually from a single sippts command. It is aimed at penetration testers and VoIP administrators checking their own infrastructure rather than at general network scanning teams. First committed in 2015 with 12 contributors, it has settled into a slow maintenance pace: three commits in the past year and a last release over 600 days ago, so treat it as stable rather than actively evolving.
SIPPTS is a set of scripts, programmed in Python, for auditing VoIP servers and devices using the SIP protocol.
How sippts helps
Which hosts on my network are actually running SIP services?
sends probes across the local network or a given range and lists the devices that answer, so unadvertised or forgotten SIP endpoints surface
Which extensions on a SIP server can be reached without valid credentials?
walks a range of extension numbers against the server and reports which ones exist and respond, marking which accept registration
Which of my SIP accounts are protected by weak or guessable passwords?
runs credential attacks against the registrar using supplied wordlists and reports which extensions authenticate successfully
Is this SIP server exposed to a known vulnerability?
fingerprints the server's software and version from its responses and checks it against a maintained list of known CVEs, naming the ones that match
What actually happened in a call captured on the wire?
pulls the SIP signaling, RTP streams, and reconstructed audio out of a saved capture file, so the call setup and content can be reviewed after the fact
Can an attacker on this network intercept or redirect an active call?
offers sniffing and spoofing modules that capture live SIP traffic or inject spoofed messages, showing whether call hijacking or media interception succeeds against the target infrastructure
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 sippts, 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 sippts 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 20261
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in Pepelux/sippts, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 2 ±0 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +0 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 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 29 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 0
- Contributors / month 1
- Commits / month 24
- Stars 572
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.