ThreatMapper
v2.5.3 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on ThreatMapper's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
ThreatMapper hunts for threats in production platforms and ranks them based on risk-of-exploit, uncovering vulnerable software, exposed secrets, and security deviations.
export DEEPFENCE_FILE_SERVER_PORT='8080' ./threatmapper-server --socket-path /var/run/docker-custom.sock
Summary
ThreatMapper is an open-source runtime security platform that hunts for vulnerabilities, exposed secrets, and misconfigurations across production cloud-native environments. It combines agent-based sensors, run as containers or on Docker hosts, with agent-less monitoring to cover cloud, Kubernetes, serverless (Fargate), and on-prem platforms, and it visualizes findings through a ThreatGraph that ranks issues by risk of exploit. It suits teams doing security observability for live infrastructure rather than pre-deployment code scanning, extending shift left checks into runtime. It sits in the container-security space, continuously checking running workloads against configuration benchmarks rather than gating a CI pipeline. First committed in 2021 and maintained by a community of 66 contributors, though activity has slowed to 8 commits in the past year.
ThreatMapper hunts for threats in production platforms and ranks them based on risk-of-exploit, uncovering vulnerable software, exposed secrets, and security deviations.
How ThreatMapper helps
Which of my running containers have vulnerable software packages installed?
scans workload filesystems and dependency manifests against vulnerability feeds and lists affected packages by container, ranked by risk of exploit
Where are secrets sitting exposed in my live infrastructure?
inspects running containers, hosts and images for credential patterns and flags each exposed secret with its location
Do my hosts and cloud accounts match recommended security configuration?
checks host, container and cloud settings against industry-standard benchmarks and reports each deviation found
Which of the issues found across my environment should I fix first?
plots findings on a ThreatGraph that ranks them by risk of exploit, so the highest-priority paths surface above the rest
Is my Kubernetes, serverless or on-prem estate covered by the same checks?
runs the same agent-based and agentless monitoring across cloud, Kubernetes, Fargate and on-prem platforms so coverage doesn't stop at one environment type
Have new vulnerabilities emerged in software I already deployed?
continues checking already-running workloads against current vulnerability feeds after deployment, rather than only at build time
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 ThreatMapper, 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 ThreatMapper 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
17 entries
No entries match these filters.
- January 20251
- December 20241
- November 20241
- October 20241
- July 20241
- April 20241
- March 20241
- February 20241
- October 20231
- September 20231
- March 20231
- January 20231
- October 20221
- August 20221
- July 20221
- March 20222
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in deepfence/ThreatMapper, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 2 −6 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +1 joined · −3 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 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 140 of 610 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 140
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 5,323
- bugs 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
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.
Choose a badge style and copy the code →