Lenny Omega Prime
Autonomous AI pentest platform with 134 attack modules
15 followers
Autonomous AI pentest platform with 134 attack modules
15 followers
Lenny is an AI-powered penetration testing platform that automates what takes security teams weeks. 134 attack modules (WordPress, AWS, Kubernetes, Active Directory...) Natural language interface - just say "scan that server" or "find vulns" 22-phase "Omega Strike" autonomous assault Professional compliance reports (PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOC2) Multi-cloud support (AWS, Azure) One-time $1,499. No subscriptions. Full source code. Built by offensive security pros who got tired of juggling 50 tools.
Payment Required
Launch Team / Built With
@roy_barbosa Hey, congrats on your launch! Quick heads-up, I was clicking around your page and couldn’t find the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy. You might already have them somewhere, but wanted to flag it in case they’re missing or not linked yet. Those usually get checked pretty early. Happy to help if useful :D
@natalija_kerstein Thank you for flagging this, super helpful. You’re right: the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy weren’t linked clearly. I just added them to the footer on the main page (and the affiliate page as well). Appreciate you taking the time to click around and point it out!
@roy_barbosa that's great! Of course, best of luck!
For those actively doing pentests: what part of an engagement still feels the least well-supported by today’s tools?
For me, the bottleneck is synthesizing findings across multiple systems and presenting them in a way that clients can actually act on, something scanners don’t fully solve.
@rysmith1313 That’s a great callout, and honestly one of the biggest gaps we saw when talking to working pentesters. Most scanners are decent at finding individual issues, but they fall apart when it comes to synthesis: correlating findings across hosts, understanding how they chain, and then translating that into something a client can actually prioritize and act on. Lenny is designed to focus heavily on that middle layer, correlating signals across systems, reducing noise, and generating output that reads closer to a pentester’s notes than a raw scanner dump. It’s not a replacement for human judgment, but it aims to eliminate a lot of the manual stitching work that slows engagements down. Out of curiosity, when you’re doing that synthesis today, what ends up taking the most time, prioritization, explaining impact to non-technical stakeholders, or report cleanup at the end?
@Lenny Omega Prime What does Lenny find that traditional automated scanners usually miss?
@hellofriend956 Traditional scanners report raw output and stop. Lenny goes further: he correlates findings across recon, enumeration, and exploitation phases, highlighting chained vulnerabilites and context-specific misconfigurations scanners often miss.
What's different is that Lenny filters noise and flags only what actually matters, so pentesters spend time making decisions, not chasing false positives.
I'd love to hear from other security pros, what gaps do you see scanners missing in your workflow?
@Lenny Omega Prime @roy_barbosa I already use Burp, Nuclei, and Metasploit, where does Lenny actually fit into a real pentest workflow?
@happyguy210 Totally fair, if you're already using Burp, Nuclei, and Metasploit, Lenny isn't a replacement for any of them. He fits above those tools in the workflow.
Lenny handles recon synthesis, attack-path prioritization, and decides when it's worth dropping into Burp or Metasploit, instead of running everything by default. The goal is fewer context switches and less noise, so experienced testers spend more time on judgment and exploitation depth.
That's the gap he's designed to fill.
@roy_barbosa Appreciate the clarification. Framing Lenny as a decision‑layer above Burp/Nuclei/Metasploit makes sense, especially for larger scopes where tool sprawl and alert fatigue become real problems.
The real test will be how transparent and controllable that prioritization logic is. If I can see why Lenny is recommending a specific attack path, and override or steer it when needed, that’s where it becomes genuinely useful rather than just another abstraction layer. Curious to see real-world examples where it changes what an experienced tester would have done manually.
Congrat on the launch. How does Lenny handle context and validation across findings to avoid false positives you usually get from automated scanners?
@dcforme12 Thanks! Great question. Lenny doesn't treat findings as isolated signals. He maintains session level context across recon, enumeration, and interactions, so results are evaluated in relation to the target's behavior rather than matched blindly to signatures.
Validation is evidence-driven: findings are cross-checked, confidence-scored, and anything that can't be substantiated is clearly marked instead of promoted as vulnerability. The goal is fewer false positives and more time spent on issues that actually matter.
Curious how others here usually validate scanner findings today.
Who do you think gets the most value from Lenny right now? Consultants, internal security teams, or solo pentesters?
@ggtay88 Great question. Right now, Lenny delivers value across all three, but in slightly different ways:
Consultants benefit from faster recon and prioritization, letting them deliver deeper insights to clients in less time.
Internal security teams can intergrate Lenny into ongoing monitoring and reduce repetitive scanning, freezing up time for strategic initiatives.
Solo pentesters get a workflow partner that handles noise and context, so they can focus on the higher-impact vulnerabilities.
Overall, anyone who wants to spend less time on mechanical tasks and more on decision-making tends to see the biggest immediate ROI.
Curious which of these groups people here work with the most, and whether their workflows encounter similar bottlenecks.
@Lenny Omega Prime @roy_barbosa What does Lenny's output actually look like at the end of an assessment? More like scanner results or a pentester's notes?
@pfrank85 Great question! Lenny’s output is a hybrid, it combines the structured, actionable format of professional pentester notes with the thoroughness of automated scanner results. Each finding includes context, confidence scores, and suggested next steps, so testers can immediately prioritize critical issues without wading through noise.
Curious if others have experienced challenges balancing scanner output and manual notes, how do you usually handle that in your workflows?
@roy_barbosa I usually end up exporting scanner results and then rewriting or restructuring them manually so they make sense to clients. The raw output is rarely client-ready. Anything that gets closer to “notes I’d actually hand over” instead of a vulnerability dump is a big win.
@pfrank85 That’s exactly the problem Lenny is built around. Most tools are great at finding issues but terrible at expressing them in a way clients actually understand. Lenny’s output is intentionally closer to deliverable‑ready notes: scoped impact, confidence, and remediation context, not raw dumps. The goal is to reduce the rewrite step so reports reflect analyst judgment, not scanner verbosity.