Skip to content

qeeqbox/honeypots

Status: Informative · evaluation proof
Upstream: https://github.com/qeeqbox/honeypots · GitHub last push 2025-12-03
Runtime: qeeqbox-honeypots:uhbs-lab (pip install in Python 3.11)

What this decoy is

Multi-protocol honeypot framework; UHBS published selected overlapping protocol grades.

Protocol survey (graded)

Surface UHBS plugin? Graded? Quick Full
ssh yes yes 59.88 / D 59.68 / D
http yes yes 45.84 / F 45.73 / F
ftp yes yes 42.71 / F 40.31 / F
telnet yes yes 29.88 / F 29.77 / F
smtp yes yes 30.9 / F 30.78 / F
pop3 yes yes 31.06 / F 30.94 / F
mysql yes yes 34.38 / F 34.27 / F
postgres yes yes 34.38 / F 34.27 / F
redis yes yes 34.61 / F 34.5 / F
vnc yes yes 32.92 / F 32.81 / F

Skipped in this proof

| dhcp, dns, httpproxy, https, httpsproxy, imap, ipp, irc, ldap, memcache, mssql, oracle, pjl, socks5, elastic, snmp, ntp, sip, smb, rdp | — | skipped | — | — |

* UHBS has plugins for snmp/ntp/sip/smb/rdp/elastic-as-http but they were not included in this lab batch (UDP/TLS/heavy deps deferred). elastic can be graded as http in a follow-up.

For CTI analysts

  • Protocol-by-protocol results vary widely — use per-protocol hubs, not a single composite “qeeqbox score”.

Primary signals you can expect (when logging is wired): Per-protocol auth/banner telemetry depending on enabled services.

For blue teams / detection engineering

  • Enable only needed protocols; each listener expands attack surface on the decoy host.
  • Compare UHBS plugin coverage vs qeeqbox capabilities — unsupported protocols were not graded.

Trust & limitations

  • This page is evaluation proof under UHBS 4.2.2 — not a certification or vendor ranking.
  • Prefer full/ artifacts over quick/ for operational decisions.
  • Re-run via TUTORIAL.md; environment notes in METHODOLOGY.md.
  • How to read modules: READING-UHQS.md