Abstract
We examined the popularity of open-source tools used for information security analysis (infosec tools). This information would be useful, e.g. in security research, but it was not available. In our study, we created first a corpus of 423 tools from various sources. Then we collected source popularity metrics by Google search, tweets, GitHub stars, SecTools.org ranking, and cross-references between tools. We found a strong correlation between the metrics. We created an aggregate popularity metric from Google search, GitHub stars, and tool cross-reference source metrics using principal component analysis. The aggregate metric explains 70% of the variance in the source metrics. The three most popular tools are Metasploit, Nmap, and Wireshark. We estimated the impact of source metric errors and concluded that the aggregate metric gives an estimate of tool popularity, rather than an exact popularity rank. Furthermore, we divide the tools into overlapping categories by tool scope and type of activity. In the top 100, 51 tools are in the network scope, 27 in the host scope, 15 in the storage scope, 13 in the passwords scope, and 4 in the other tools scope.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ArchStrike linux. https://archstrike.org/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
BlackArch linux. https://blackarch.org/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
CAINE linux. https://www.caine-live.net/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
CinCan project. https://cincan.io/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Debian linux. https://www.debian.org/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Fedora Security Lab. https://labs.fedoraproject.org/en/security/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
FLARE VM image. https://github.com/fireeye/flare-vm. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
GetOldTweets3. https://pypi.org/project/GetOldTweets3/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
GitHub home page. https://github.com. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
GitLab home page. https://gitlab.com/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Google Code Archive. https://code.google.com/archive/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Google Custom Search. https://developers.google.com/custom-search. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Kali linux. https://www.kali.org/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Metasploit. https://www.metasploit.com/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Nmap. https://nmap.org/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Pentoo linux. https://www.pentoo.ch/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Programmable search engine help: Custom Search vs Google.com. https://support.google.com/programmable-search/answer/70392. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
REMnux linux. https://remnux.org/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
SecTools.Org. https://sectools.org/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
SIFT workstation linux. https://digital-forensics.sans.org/community/downloads. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Sourceforge home page. https://sourceforge.net/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Ubuntu linux. https://ubuntu.com/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
WireShark. https://www.wireshark.org/. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
Bagrow, J., Rozenfeld, H., Bollt, E., ben Avraham, D.: How famous is a scientist? - famous to those who know us. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 67 (2004)
Cilibrasi, R.L., Vitanyi, P.M.B.: The google similarity distance. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 19(3), 370–383 (2007)
Ellison, D., Ikuesan, R.A., Venter, H.S.: Ontology for reactive techniques in digital forensics. In: 2019 IEEE Conference on Application, Information and Network Security (AINS), pp. 83–88 (2019)
Harichandran, V.S., Breitinger, F., Baggili, I., Marrington, A.: A cyber forensics needs analysis survey: revisiting the domain’s needs a decade later. Comput. Secur. 57, 1–13 (2016)
Hibshi, H., Vidas, T., Cranor, L.: Usability of forensics tools: a user study. In: 2011 Sixth International Conference on IT Security Incident Management and IT Forensics, pp. 81–91 (2011)
Hoque, N., Bhuyan, M.H., Baishya, R., Bhattacharyya, D., Kalita, J.: Network attacks: taxonomy, tools and systems. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 40, 307–324 (2014)
Jolliffe, I., Cadima, J.: Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 374, 20150202 (2016)
Karie, N.M., Venter, H.S.: Measuring semantic similarity between digital forensics terminologies using web search engines. In: 2012 Information Security for South Africa, pp. 1–9 (2012)
Mandal, N., Jadhav, S.: A survey on network security tools for open source. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Current Trends in Advanced Computing (ICCTAC), pp. 1–6 (2016)
Weiss, D.: Measuring success of open source projects using web search engines. In: Scotto, M., Succi, G. (eds.) Proceedings of The First International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS 2005), Genova, Italy, pp. 93–99 (2005)
Acknowlegements
This work is done in the CinCan project funded by CEF programme (2016-FI-IA-0095) and in the SECREDAS project funded by Horizon 2020 programme (grant agreement nr. 783119) and by Business Finland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kaksonen, R., Järvenpää, T., Pajukangas, J., Mahalean, M., Röning, J. (2021). 100 Popular Open-Source Infosec Tools. In: Jøsang, A., Futcher, L., Hagen, J. (eds) ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection. SEC 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 625. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78120-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78120-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78119-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78120-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
