head to head · open source

lynis vs Harden-Windows-Security

lynis has 16,611 GitHub stars, 1,645 forks, 224 open issues and last shipped 2 months ago. Harden-Windows-Security has 4,825 stars, 345 forks, 5 open issues and last shipped 4 days ago. lynis leads on adoption by 244% (16,611 vs 4,825 stars). lynis is written in Shell under GPL-3.0; Harden-Windows-Security is written in C# under MIT. lynis has attracted 10% as many forks as stars, Harden-Windows-Security 7%. Harden-Windows-Security was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (compliance), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

lynis ★ 17K Harden-Windows-Security ★ 4.8K category Business Software

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

lynis Harden-Windows-Security
GitHub stars ★ 17K ★ 4.8K
License GPL-3.0 MIT
Written in Shell C#
Last push 2026-09-16 2026-10-30
Forks ⑂ 1.6K ⑂ 345
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick lynis if

  • You weight community size — 17K stars and counting
  • You want the GPL-3.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Shell
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full lynis profile →

pick Harden-Windows-Security if

  • You want the Harden-Windows-Security feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches C#
  • You evaluated both and Harden-Windows-Security fits your workflow better

full Harden-Windows-Security profile →

About lynis

[Documentation] [Documentation]: Do you like this software? Star the project and become a stargazer. lynis Lynis Security auditing and hardening tool, for UNIX based systems. Lynis is a security auditing tool for systems based on UNIX like Linux, macOS, BSD, and others. It performs an in depth security scan and runs on the system itself. The primary goal is to test security defenses and provide tips for further system hardening . It will also scan for general system information, vulnerable software packages, and possible configuration issues. Lynis was commonly used by system administrators and auditors to…

read the full lynis overview →

About Harden-Windows-Security

Harden Windows Security A New Threat to Malware Harden Windows Safely, Securely, Only With Official Microsoft Methods How To Use Related Trust Support Security Recommendations Resources License Wiki Basic FAQs Roadmap Donation [!IMPORTANT]\ Here are Quick Access Points to Important Sections of this Repository Harden System Security App AppControl Manager App Application Control for Business Resources [!NOTE]\ This repository only uses the features that have already been implemented by Microsoft in Windows OS to fine tune it towards the highest security and locked down state, without relying on any 3rd party…

read the full Harden-Windows-Security overview →

More in Business Software

Related comparisons

More Compliance & Risk Management projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Compliance & Risk Management field.

Frequently asked questions

Is lynis or Harden-Windows-Security more popular?

lynis has 16,611 GitHub stars and Harden-Windows-Security has 4,825. lynis has the larger community by that measure.

Are lynis and Harden-Windows-Security free?

Both are open source. lynis is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Harden-Windows-Security under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between lynis and Harden-Windows-Security?

lynis is written in Shell and Harden-Windows-Security in C#. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, lynis or Harden-Windows-Security?

Choose lynis if you want the larger community (16,611 stars) or its GPL-3.0 licence terms. Choose Harden-Windows-Security if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.