Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 10:49 UTC

GoSecure / pyrdp

RDP monster-in-the-middle (mitm) and library for Python with the ability to watch connections live or after the fact

PythonGPL-3.0★ 1,779 stars⑂ 274 forkssince Sep 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindDesktop applicationCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#hacktoberfest#rdp#pentest#honeypot#mitm#pyrdp#security

GoSecure/pyrdp holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (88/100) and lowest on Security (13/100). It was last updated 119 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

56
overall / 100
Moderate

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

56
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

GoSecureOrganization
234 followers96 public repossince Nov 2015

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIpyrdp-mitm2.1.06864959 days agordpmitminterceptionattackpentesthoneypots

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

31At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

23At Risk
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 119 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume — 11 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year11
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push119
active_weeks_last_year2

Release discipline

44Weak
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 10 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 959 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~188.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagv2.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release959
mean_days_between_releases188.1

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

82Excellent
How it's scored
52.7/60Stars — 1,779 stars
20.3/25Forks — 274 forks
8.9/15Watchers — 41 watchers
Inputs used
forks274
stars1,779
watchers41
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

47Weak
How it's scored
37.8/80Monthly downloads — 686 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespyrdp-mitm
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads686
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

67Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

59Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 36% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 30 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled30
top_contributor_share0.36

Issue & PR responsiveness

75Good
How it's scored
34.6/42Issue resolution — 82% of issues closed
28.9/30PR acceptance — 188/195 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs188
open_issues51
closed_issues241
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.825
closed_unmerged_prs7
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1

Ownership & stewardship

72Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17/25Owner reach — 234 followers of GoSecure
25/25Track record — 96 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers234
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginGoSecure
public_repos96
account_age_days3,939

Package maintenance

61Moderate
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 959 days ago
12/20Version history — 4 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespyrdp-mitm
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish959

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .flake8, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.gosecure.net/blog/2020/10/20/announcing-pyrdp-1/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest, rdp, pentest, honeypot, mitm, pyrdp, security
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.gosecure.net/blog/2020/10/20/announcing-pyrdp-1/
docs_sitehttps://www.gosecure.net/blog/2020/10/20/announcing-pyrdp-1/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

13Critical · 16% of overall

Security posture

1Critical
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestspyproject.toml, requirements-ci.txt, requirements-slim.txt, requirements.txt, setup.py
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno

Dependency advisories

59Moderate
How it's scored
6.3/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: pyopenssl 23.3.0 (critical 9.8), cryptography 41.0.7 (high 8.2)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
27.6/40No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 957 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories18
affected_packages2
assessed_packages25
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 1
direct_affected_packages2
Matched the pypi:pyrdp-mitm@2.1.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 25 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

40Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

21At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.3/40Legible commit history — 40 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.4
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

48Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .flake8, pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/221 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes41,472
source_files_sampled221
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,779GitHub stars
30contributors
11commits, last 12 months
119days since last push
10releases
2bus factor
51open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 274 ⇿
0Stars
274Forks
10Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

050100150200250300267152018-122022-102026-08
Major 2Minor 7Patch 1

Each point covers 8 days.

Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIappdirs>=1,<2pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography>=3.3.2,<42pyproject.toml
PyPInamesgenerator>=0.3,<1pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=1,<2pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=1.26.4pyproject.toml
PyPIprogressbar2>=3.20,<5pyproject.toml
PyPIpyasn1>=0,<1pyproject.toml
PyPIpycryptodome>=3.5,<4pyproject.toml
PyPIpyopenssl>=19,<24pyproject.toml
PyPIpytz—pyproject.toml
PyPIrsa>=4,<5pyproject.toml
PyPIscapy>=2.4,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIservice_identity>=18pyproject.toml
PyPItwisted>=23pyproject.toml
All dependencies 50

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 26 direct and 24 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIappdirs—direct
PyPIappdirs1.4.4direct
PyPIcryptography—direct
PyPIcryptography41.0.7direct
PyPInamesgenerator—direct
PyPInamesgenerator0.3direct
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPInumpy1.26.4direct
PyPIprogressbar2—direct
PyPIprogressbar24.5.0direct
PyPIpyasn1—direct
PyPIpyasn10.6.3direct
PyPIpycryptodome—direct
PyPIpycryptodome3.23.0direct
PyPIpyopenssl—direct
PyPIpyopenssl23.3.0direct
PyPIpytz—direct
PyPIpytz2026.2direct
PyPIrsa—direct
PyPIrsa4.9.1direct
PyPIscapy—direct
PyPIscapy2.7.0direct
PyPIservice-identity—direct
PyPIservice-identity24.2.0direct
PyPItwisted—direct
PyPItwisted26.4.0direct
PyPIattrs26.1.0indirect
PyPIautomat25.4.16indirect
PyPIav11.0.0indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIconstantly23.10.4indirect
PyPIcoverage—indirect
PyPIhyperlink21.0.0indirect
PyPIidna3.14indirect
PyPIincremental24.11.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpy-notifier0.5.0indirect
PyPIpyasn1-modules0.4.2indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpyside66.11.0indirect
PyPIpyside6-addons6.11.0indirect
PyPIpyside6-essentials6.11.0indirect
PyPIpython-utils3.9.1indirect
PyPIqimage2ndarray1.10.0indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIshiboken66.11.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIwheel0.47.0indirect
PyPIwintoaster—indirect
PyPIzope-interface8.4indirect
Dependency advisories 2

Installing pypi:pyrdp-mitm@2.1.0 pulls in 25 packages, direct and transitive: 2 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
pyopenssl23.3.0directcritical426.0.0
cryptography41.0.7directhigh1449.0.0

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with GoSecure/pyrdp. Read them side by side →

99prowler-cloud/prowlerProwler is the world’s most widely used open-source cloud security platform that automates security and compliance across any cloud environment.Exceptional100openfga/openfgaA high performance and flexible authorization/permission engine built for developers and inspired by Google ZanzibarExceptional99aquasecurity/trivyFind vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, secrets, SBOM in containers, Kubernetes, code repositories, clouds and moreExceptional98open-policy-agent/gatekeeper🐊 Policy Controller for KubernetesExceptional98falcosecurity/falcoCloud Native Runtime SecurityExceptional98openfga/js-sdkOpenFGA SDK for node.js and JavaScript - https://www.npmjs.com/package/@openfga/sdkExceptional

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.