web-cache-vulnerability-scanner
2.0.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on web-cache-vulnerability-scanner's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Web Cache Vulnerability Scanner (WCVS) is a CLI tool that tests websites for web cache poisoning and web cache deception vulnerabilities.
wcvs -u https://example.com/page --nolog --skipwordlistcachbuster wcvs -u https://example.com --stime ./wcvs -is 418,429 -u https://example.com web-cache-vulnerability-scanner --target https://example.com --time-diff 500
Summary
web-cache-vulnerability-scanner is an open-source, Apache 2.0-licensed command-line scanner for web cache poisoning and web cache deception, built by Hackmanit. It runs as a CLI binary, installable prebuilt, via Go, Docker, or the Kali Linux and BlackArch repositories, and it fits into CI/CD pipelines with JSON reporting for automated runs. It covers ten poisoning techniques plus multiple deception methods, includes a crawler to find further URLs worth testing, and adapts its requests to the behavior of a specific cache, using fasthttp internally to send RFC-violating requests that standard HTTP clients cannot. It is aimed at penetration testers and application security engineers assessing caching layers rather than at generalist scanners covering broader web vulnerabilities. First committed in 2021 with 8 contributors and 13 tracked releases, it has slowed to 5 commits in the past year and a release roughly a year ago, suggesting maintenance has cooled but not stopped.
Web Cache Vulnerability Scanner (WCVS) is a CLI tool that tests websites for web cache poisoning and web cache deception vulnerabilities.
How web-cache-vulnerability-scanner helps
Are there URLs on this site I haven't thought to test for caching bugs?
crawls the target to discover further URLs and feeds each one through the same poisoning and deception checks rather than relying on a manually supplied list
Which specific findings need to go to a developer or into a ticket?
produces a JSON report per run with reflection context and reflection counts, so a pipeline can fail a build or a tester can attach concrete evidence to a specific finding
Did this scan actually detect the target's caching layer, or is it guessing blindly?
recognizes cache-hit indicators from a set of known headers (including vendor-specific ones like Netlify's or Kinsta's) and adapts its cachebuster and testing behavior once a cache is confirmed present
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 web-cache-vulnerability-scanner, 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 web-cache-vulnerability-scanner 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
8 entries
No entries match these filters.
- August 20251
- April 20251
- November 20241
- March 20241
- February 20241
- December 20231
- January 20221
- October 20211
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in Hackmanit/Web-Cache-Vulnerability-Scanner, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 1 −2 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 0 +0 joined · −1 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 < 1 day first maintainer reply 0.2 hours
- Open backlog 0 of 15 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 0
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 1,205
- other 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.