Wapiti
3.3.1 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Wapiti's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Wapiti is a web vulnerability scanner written in Python that performs black-box scans by crawling web applications and injecting payloads to detect vulnerabilities.
wapiti -u https://example.com -m csp,http_headers,cookieflags wapiti -u https://example.com -m sql,timesql wapiti --url https://target.com --cookie-value "sessionid=abc123" wapiti --url https://target.com -m ldap wapiti --url https://api.target.com/swagger.yaml -m swagger wapiti --url http://target.com -m mod_spring4shell wapiti --url http://target.com -m mod_upload wapiti --url https://example.com/ --output detailed_report.html --detailed-report wapiti --url https://example.com/ --mitm-port 8080 wapiti --url https://example.com --data "username=admin&password=test"
Summary
Wapiti is an open-source web vulnerability scanner, free to use, run from the command line against a deployed web application without needing its source code. It crawls pages, extracts links and forms, and fuzzes inputs to find issues like SQL and XPath injection, XSSXSSCross-site scripting, an attack that runs malicious script in another user's browser through a trusted site. It can steal data or perform actions using the user's session., command execution, XXEXXEXML External Entity injection, a class of attack against XML parsers that tricks them into fetching external resources or local files, letting an attacker read sensitive data or trigger server-side request forgery., SSRFSSRFServer-side request forgery, an attack that tricks a server into making requests chosen by an attacker. Those requests can reach internal services the attacker cannot access directly., Log4Shell and Spring4Shell, along with weak headers, cookie flags and TLS misconfigurations, reporting results in HTML, JSON, XML or CSV. It suits application security testers and developers who need to check a running site rather than review code, sitting in the same black-box, DASTDASTDynamic application security testing, probing a running application from the outside for vulnerabilities. It checks behavior exposed through the application's interfaces.-style category as other web scanners. Written in Python and installable via pip, it remains actively maintained, with 47 contributors, 181 commits in the past year, and a release just 25 days ago.
Wapiti is a web vulnerability scanner written in Python that performs black-box scans by crawling web applications and injecting payloads to detect vulnerabilities.
How Wapiti helps
Which pages reflect or store attacker-controlled input as script?
injects markers into every input and re-crawls the site afterward, distinguishing reflected XSS from permanent XSS by checking whether the payload comes back on a later, different request
Is this deployed site leaking information it shouldn't through headers, cookies or TLS?
inspects response headers, cookie flags, HTTPS redirects and the TLS configuration, and reports missing security headers, missing secure/httponly flags and known TLS misconfigurations
Am I running a known-vulnerable component I haven't patched?
fingerprints frameworks and CMSs in use against the Wappalyzer database and cross-references them with CVE data, and separately probes for Log4Shell and Spring4Shell by attempting the exploit itself
Are any of my forms or endpoints exposing files or backups they shouldn't?
walks likely paths and filenames using the Nikto database and directory-enumeration techniques to find dangerous files, leftover script backups and weak htaccess restrictions
Is the application quietly telling attackers about its internals without being attacked?
runs passive checks against captured traffic to catch server-side stack traces, cleartext passwords and risky Content-Security-Policy gaps, and reports these separately per host so nothing found this way gets dropped alongside the active-scan results
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 Wapiti, 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 Wapiti 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
12 entries
No entries match these filters.
- July 20261
- May 20261
- November 20251
- October 20252
- August 20241
- May 20241
- January 20231
- October 20221
- July 20221
- February 20222
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in wapiti-scanner/wapiti, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 8 +2 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 2 +1 joined · −0 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 632 days first maintainer reply 8 days
- Open backlog 8 of 231 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 1 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 8
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 1,863
- bugs 11%
- other 89%
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.