wig
0.6 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on wig's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Web application information gatherer that fingerprints CMSCMSA web content management system for creating and managing digital content without writing code directly; cyber tools use CMS platforms to host documentation, portals, or reporting dashboards quickly. versions, platforms, and OS by analyzing known file checksums and HTTP headers.
wig --target example.com --desperate-mode
Summary
wig is an open-source command-line tool that fingerprints the content management system, platform, and operating system behind a web application by matching checksums of known files against a bundled database and reading server response headers. It is free to use, written in Python 3, and run directly against a target URL or a file of URLs, making it a fit for penetration testers and recon-focused security researchers profiling a site before deeper testing. Options let a user throttle threads, skip subdomain enumeration, or export results to JSON for further processing.
Web application information gatherer that fingerprints CMS versions, platforms, and OS by analyzing known file checksums and HTTP headers.
How wig helps
Which content management system is actually running behind this URL?
matches checksums of known files against a bundled database and scores each candidate CMS by weight and hit count, then reports the most probable version
Which operating system is this server likely running?
reads the server and x-powered-by response headers and compares them against a database of known header values to guess Windows versions or Linux distributions
Is the CMS hiding in a non-standard location on this site?
fetches all static resources encountered during the scan and tests every fingerprint against every fetched URL instead of only the default paths
Can I check a whole list of sites without babysitting each scan?
accepts a file of URLs and runs the same fingerprinting pass across all of them, throttled by a configurable number of threads
Am I only getting the surface-level guess, or the full picture?
by default it stops after identifying the CMS and its version to limit traffic, but switching to test all known fingerprints surfaces every other platform or application it can match
How do I get these results into another tool in my recon pipeline?
writes the detected CMS, version, and OS findings out to a file as JSON for downstream processing
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 wig, 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 wig 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
4 entries
No entries match these filters.
- March 20161
- March 20151
- September 20141
- July 20141
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in jekyc/wig, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors not measured distinct committers, last 12 months
- Maintainers not measured core set, last 12 months
- Bus factor not measured 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 10 of 26 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 10
- Contributors / month not measured
- Commits / month not measured
- Stars 553
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.