fscan vs Gitleaks
Which should you use? A side-by-side look at what each one does, who it suits, what it costs, how hard it is to set up, and where each falls short.
Open source · MIT
CLI scanner for internal networks: hosts, ports, services and known weaknesses.
Open source · MIT
Open-source command-line tool that scans git repos and files for leaked passwords, API keys, and tokens.
The short answer
Choose fscan if you need…
- Security staff running authorized internal network assessments
- Penetration testers who want one tool for host discovery, port scans and service checks
- Teams that want scan results exported as TXT, JSON or CSV
- Developers who want to embed its scanning engine via the Go SDK (pkg/fscan)
Choose Gitleaks if you need…
- Developers who want to catch accidentally committed credentials before they reach a shared repository
- Teams adding a secret-scanning step to CI pipelines
- Security staff auditing the history of existing git repositories
- Anyone who wants a pre-commit hook that blocks commits containing secrets
Side-by-side
| fscan | Gitleaks | |
|---|---|---|
| Type | CLI | CLI |
| Price | Free and open source | Free and open source |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| GitHub stars | 14.7k | 30.6k |
| Setup difficulty | Intermediate | Beginner |
| How you get it | Clone and build from source | Install with a package manager |
| Main language | Go | Go |
| Last code update | 36 days ago | 9 days ago |
What each one is
fscan
Fscan is a command-line tool for scanning internal networks. It checks which hosts are alive, which ports are open, what services run on them, and whether they have weak passwords or known vulnerabilities. Its README says it is meant to run these checks automatically in one pass. It is intended only for authorized security testing.
Gitleaks
Gitleaks is a command-line tool that searches code for secrets such as passwords, API keys, and tokens. It can scan git repositories (including their commit history), regular directories and files, or any text piped in through stdin. People use it to catch credentials before or after they are committed, often in pre-commit hooks or CI pipelines. The README notes that the project is feature complete and will only receive security patches, with the maintainer shifting focus to Betterleaks.
Best for
fscan
- Security staff running authorized internal network assessments
- Penetration testers who want one tool for host discovery, port scans and service checks
- Teams that want scan results exported as TXT, JSON or CSV
- Developers who want to embed its scanning engine via the Go SDK (pkg/fscan)
Gitleaks
- Developers who want to catch accidentally committed credentials before they reach a shared repository
- Teams adding a secret-scanning step to CI pipelines
- Security staff auditing the history of existing git repositories
- Anyone who wants a pre-commit hook that blocks commits containing secrets
Strengths
fscan
- Covers several scanning steps (host discovery, ports, services, web fingerprints, weak logins, vulnerability checks) in one tool
- Has a large community and an active repository, with 14,726 stars and a push on 2026-10-01 shown in the metadata
- Open-source under the MIT license with multiple output formats and a Go SDK
Gitleaks
- Covers git history, files, and stdin in one tool
- Installable through Homebrew, Docker, Go, or prebuilt binaries
- Configurable with its own rules, baseline files, and ignore files
Not ideal for
fscan
- Anyone scanning networks or hosts they are not authorized to test, since the README disclaims responsibility for unauthorized use and the tool includes brute-force and exploitation features
- Users who want a graphical point-and-click app, because the main interface is the command line (the web UI needs a separate build with -tags web)
- Users needing a very small or embedded build today, since the lightweight C version (fscan-lite) is listed in the roadmap and not described as finished
Gitleaks
- Users who need new features: the README says the project is feature complete and only security patches will be released
- Users wanting a graphical interface: the README documents only command-line usage
- Those expecting a guaranteed zero-false-positive result: the README does not make accuracy claims, and detection is regex-based
Trade-offs
fscan
- Many features are offensive (brute force, exploitation, persistence, shell and log-clearing modules), so it must be used only with written authorization and it carries misuse risk
- The README is truncated and mixes Chinese and English, so some options and behaviors are hard to verify from the text shown
- Some local modules are described as Windows-specific, such as memory dumps and keylogging, which limits use on other systems
Gitleaks
- Feature complete, so no new features are planned and only security patches will follow
- Command-line only, so it requires comfort with a terminal
- Detection relies on patterns, so results may need review and tuning
Getting started
fscan
Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/shadow1ng/fscanStandard build (from the repo folder)
go build -ldflags="-s -w" -trimpath -o fscan .Gitleaks
Install with Homebrew (macOS)
brew install gitleaksPull the Docker image
docker pull zricethezav/gitleaks:latestFrequently asked questions
What is the difference between fscan and Gitleaks?
fscan: CLI scanner for internal networks: hosts, ports, services and known weaknesses. Gitleaks: Open-source command-line tool that scans git repos and files for leaked passwords, API keys, and tokens. fscan suits security staff running authorized internal network assessments, while Gitleaks suits developers who want to catch accidentally committed credentials before they reach a shared repository.
Are fscan and Gitleaks free?
fscan: Free and open source. Gitleaks: Free and open source.
Which is easier to set up, fscan or Gitleaks?
Gitleaks is easier to get started with (rated beginner); fscan is rated intermediate and usually needs more setup.
Is fscan or Gitleaks more popular?
Gitleaks has more GitHub stars (30.6k) than fscan (14.7k). Popularity isn't the same as fit — check which one matches your use case above.
Built from our catalogue entries for both products: open-source details come from each project's README (AI-assisted, refreshed weekly) and GitHub data; AI-tool details are editorial. Spotted something wrong? Let us know from either product's page.