AiSOC vs Garak
AiSOC leads on trust: 84.9/100 (Grade A) against 65.6/100 (Grade B), a 19.3-point gap. AiSOC leads on supply-chain integrity and provenance; Garak leads on adoption and rests on broader evidence. Note: AiSOC's evidence coverage is thinner (coverage B vs A) — its score rests on fewer independent signal types.
Open-source AI Security Operations Center: alert fusion, LLM-agent triage, MITRE ATT&CK investigation, and a replayable decision ledger for every agent step. Self-hostable, runs with no API keys, MIT licensed. Ships an MCP server for Claude, Cursor and Continue.
Choose AiSOC if supply-chain integrity and provenance matter most.
- +8.2Safety / Integrity: OSSF Scorecard 5.6 against 4.7
- +7.2Identity / Provenance: package provenance attested, against none
- +1.6Maintenance: last push today, against 1d ago
- +0.8Transparency: OSSF Scorecard 5.6 against 4.7
the LLM vulnerability scanner
Choose Garak if adoption matters most.
- +3.4Adoption: 9.1k weekly downloads against 316
- A vs BEvidence coverage: 4 of 5 independent signal types, against 3
Where they differ
An independent, evidence-based trust comparison of AiSOC and Garak, two Security & Guardrails projects in the HVTracker registry. Scores come from public, checkable signals — supply-chain provenance, OSSF Scorecard, maintenance, and adoption — not popularity.
Full evidence
| Signal | AiSOCbeenuar/AiSOC | GarakNVIDIA/garak |
|---|---|---|
| HVTrust score | 84.9 | 65.6 |
| Evidence grade | A | B |
| Coverage grade | B | A |
| Overall rank | #93 | #477 |
| Rank in Security & Guardrails | #3 | #7 |
| GitHub stars | 2.4k | 9.5k |
| Last updated | today | 1d ago |
| Build provenance | Yes | No |
| OSSF Scorecard | 5.6 / 10 | 4.7 / 10 |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Downloads | 316/wk | 9k/wk |
| Trust dimensions (points earned) | ||
| Safety / integrity / 25 | 17.6 | 9.4 |
| Identity & provenance / 18 | 18.0 | 10.8 |
| Transparency / 17 | 13.3 | 12.5 |
| Maintenance / 20 | 20.0 | 18.4 |
| Adoption / 20 | 11.4 | 14.8 |
| Runtime capability surface (full matrix) | ||
| MCP server | Implemented | — |
| External providers | — | 8 — Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic, Cohere, … |
| Requires API keys | Yes | Yes |
| Plugin surface | plugins | plugins |
| Provenance drift | Match | Match |
How to read this: HVTrust (0–100) weighs supply-chain signals (provenance, OSSF Scorecard, signed commits, open license) alongside real-world adoption, scaled by an evidence-confidence factor. Grade bands: A ≥ 80, B ≥ 65, C ≥ 50, D < 50. Signals refresh daily. Full methodology v4.4 →