diff --git a/docs/INDEX.md b/docs/INDEX.md
index a0aacc86..ed08c732 100644
--- a/docs/INDEX.md
+++ b/docs/INDEX.md
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 # Documentation Index
 
-**Last Updated**: 2026-01-10 | **Total Active Documents**: 50
+**Last Updated**: 2026-01-12 | **Total Active Documents**: 51
 
 ## Quick Links
 
 | Category | Count | Description |
 |----------|-------|-------------|
-| [Analysis](#analysis) | 19 | Analysis documents and reports |
+| [Analysis](#analysis) | 20 | Analysis documents and reports |
 | [Architecture](#architecture) | 3 | System design and architecture decisions |
 | [Design](#design) | 3 | UI/UX specifications and component library |
 | [Development](#development) | 5 | Contributing, testing, and development guides |
@@ -22,7 +22,8 @@
 
 Implementation analysis and status reports.
 
-- [**AKIS Comprehensive Analysis (100k)**](analysis/AKIS_COMPREHENSIVE_ANALYSIS_100K.md) ⭐ *New - Full framework metrics analysis*
+- [**Go Port Feasibility Study**](analysis/GO_PORT_FEASIBILITY.md) ⭐ *New - Python→Go migration analysis*
+- [**AKIS Comprehensive Analysis (100k)**](analysis/AKIS_COMPREHENSIVE_ANALYSIS_100K.md) ⭐ *Full framework metrics analysis*
 - [**AKIS v7 Framework Audit**](analysis/AKIS_V7_FRAMEWORK_AUDIT.md) ⭐ *100k before/after + microadjustments*
 - [**100k Session Simulation Results**](analysis/SIMULATION_100K_RESULTS.md) ⭐ *Comprehensive simulation metrics*
 - [AKIS Compliance Audit 100k](analysis/AKIS_COMPLIANCE_AUDIT_100K.md)
diff --git a/docs/analysis/GO_PORT_FEASIBILITY.md b/docs/analysis/GO_PORT_FEASIBILITY.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..26184768
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/analysis/GO_PORT_FEASIBILITY.md
@@ -0,0 +1,633 @@
+# Go Port Feasibility Analysis: NOP (Network Observatory Platform)
+
+> **Generated**: 2026-01-12
+> **Purpose**: Analyze complexity, feasibility, and tradeoffs for porting NOP to Go
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+Porting NOP from Python/TypeScript to Go is **technically feasible** but represents a **major undertaking** with estimated effort of **7-10 months** for a small team (2-3 developers). The primary benefits include improved performance, single binary deployment, and lower memory footprint. However, the complexity lies in replicating the rich Python library ecosystem (especially for network packet manipulation) and maintaining feature parity.
+
+| Metric | Current (Python/TypeScript) | Go Port (Estimated) |
+|--------|------------------------------|---------------------|
+| Backend LOC | ~10,854 | ~15,000-18,000 |
+| Effort (Backend) | - | 7-10 months |
+| Frontend Strategy | Keep React | Keep React (separate) |
+| Risk Level | - | Medium-High |
+
+---
+
+## 1. Current Architecture Analysis
+
+### 1.1 Technology Stack
+
+| Layer | Current Technology | Go Equivalent |
+|-------|-------------------|---------------|
+| **Backend Framework** | FastAPI (Python 3.11) | Gin, Echo, Fiber, or Chi |
+| **Database ORM** | SQLAlchemy (async) | GORM, sqlc, or Ent |
+| **Database** | PostgreSQL 15 | PostgreSQL 15 (same) |
+| **Cache** | Redis | Redis (same) |
+| **Async Runtime** | asyncio | goroutines |
+| **WebSockets** | websockets, FastAPI | gorilla/websocket |
+| **Packet Capture** | Scapy | gopacket (libpcap) |
+| **Network Scanning** | nmap (subprocess) | nmap (subprocess) |
+| **Remote Access** | Guacamole, Paramiko | Guacamole, golang.org/x/crypto/ssh |
+| **Frontend** | React 18, TypeScript, Zustand | Keep as-is (separate service) |
+| **Build/Deploy** | Docker, docker-compose | Docker, docker-compose (same) |
+
+### 1.2 Codebase Metrics
+
+| Component | Files | Lines of Code | Complexity |
+|-----------|-------|---------------|------------|
+| Backend (Python) | 69 | ~10,854 | High |
+| Frontend (TypeScript) | 38 | ~17,923 | Medium |
+| **Total** | **107** | **~28,777** | - |
+
+### 1.3 Backend Component Breakdown
+
+| Category | Files | Description |
+|----------|-------|-------------|
+| Models | 13 | SQLAlchemy ORM models (User, Asset, Agent, Scan, etc.) |
+| Services | 16 | Business logic (Scanner, Sniffer, AgentService, CVE lookup) |
+| API Endpoints | ~20 | REST API routes |
+| Schemas | ~12 | Pydantic validation models |
+| Core | 7 | Config, database, security, middleware |
+| WebSocket | 3 | Real-time communication handlers |
+
+---
+
+## 2. Complexity Assessment by Component
+
+### 2.1 High Complexity Components (6-8 weeks each)
+
+#### **SnifferService (1,567 LOC)**
+- **Current**: Uses Scapy for packet capture, deep packet inspection, protocol analysis
+- **Go Equivalent**: gopacket library with libpcap binding
+- **Challenges**:
+  - Scapy's protocol dissection is more automatic; gopacket requires explicit layer parsing
+  - Packet crafting (Storm mode) needs reimplementation
+  - Thread-safe flow tracking requires careful mutex usage
+- **Effort**: 6-8 weeks
+
+#### **AgentService + Agent Generation (2,000+ LOC)**
+- **Current**: Generates Python and Go agents dynamically with templates
+- **Go Equivalent**: text/template package
+- **Challenges**:
+  - Go agent template already exists (good news!)
+  - Python agent generation would need decision: port to Go or deprecate
+  - WebSocket C2 communication with encryption (AES-GCM)
+- **Effort**: 4-6 weeks
+
+#### **Scanner (NetworkScanner) (500+ LOC)**
+- **Current**: Wraps nmap via subprocess, parses XML output
+- **Go Equivalent**: os/exec + encoding/xml
+- **Challenges**: 
+  - Relatively straightforward subprocess wrapper
+  - XML parsing is well-supported in Go
+  - SOCKS proxy integration for POV mode
+- **Effort**: 2-3 weeks
+
+### 2.2 Medium Complexity Components (2-4 weeks each)
+
+| Component | LOC | Go Equivalent | Notes |
+|-----------|-----|---------------|-------|
+| **PingService** | ~150 | net, icmp packages | Multiple ping types (ICMP, TCP, UDP, HTTP) |
+| **AssetService** | ~200 | GORM + business logic | Standard CRUD operations |
+| **UserService** | ~150 | GORM + bcrypt/jwt | Authentication/authorization |
+| **CVE Lookup** | ~300 | net/http + caching | Rate limiting, API integration |
+| **Discovery Service** | ~200 | GORM + event handling | Standard service pattern |
+| **Guacamole Integration** | ~200 | HTTP tunneling | Protocol tunneling |
+| **Exploit Match** | ~150 | JSON parsing + matching | CVE-to-exploit mapping |
+| **Workflow Executor** | ~400 | State machine | Complex control flow |
+
+### 2.3 Low Complexity Components (1-2 weeks each)
+
+| Component | Notes |
+|-----------|-------|
+| Config/Settings | Viper library (standard Go approach) |
+| Database Connection | GORM or sqlc setup |
+| Redis Integration | go-redis/redis package |
+| Middleware (CORS, Auth) | Standard Gin/Echo middleware |
+| Health Endpoints | Simple handlers |
+| Logging | logrus or zerolog |
+
+---
+
+## 3. Library Mapping
+
+### 3.1 Direct Equivalents (Low Risk)
+
+| Python Library | Go Equivalent | Maturity |
+|----------------|---------------|----------|
+| `fastapi` | `gin-gonic/gin`, `labstack/echo` | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| `sqlalchemy` | `gorm.io/gorm`, `sqlc` | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| `redis` | `go-redis/redis/v9` | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| `websockets` | `gorilla/websocket` | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| `cryptography` | `crypto/*` (stdlib) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| `httpx` | `net/http` (stdlib) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| `pydantic` | Go structs + validation tags | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| `paramiko` | `golang.org/x/crypto/ssh` | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| `psutil` | `shirou/gopsutil/v3` | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+
+### 3.2 Partial Equivalents (Medium Risk)
+
+| Python Library | Go Equivalent | Gap Analysis |
+|----------------|---------------|--------------|
+| `scapy` | `gopacket` | Less automatic protocol detection; requires explicit layer handling |
+| `python-nmap` | Custom wrapper | Need to write XML parser for nmap output |
+| `alembic` | `golang-migrate/migrate` | Different migration approach |
+| `passlib[bcrypt]` | `golang.org/x/crypto/bcrypt` | Direct equivalent |
+
+### 3.3 No Direct Equivalent (High Risk)
+
+| Python Feature | Workaround |
+|----------------|------------|
+| Scapy packet crafting (storm mode) | Use raw sockets + manual packet construction |
+| Dynamic Python agent generation | Template-based generation (already exists for Go) |
+| Pydantic model validation | Use go-playground/validator + struct tags |
+
+---
+
+## 4. Effort Estimation
+
+### 4.1 Backend Port (Primary Effort)
+
+| Phase | Tasks | Duration | Risk |
+|-------|-------|----------|------|
+| **Phase 1: Foundation** | Project structure, config, database, auth | 3-4 weeks | Low |
+| **Phase 2: Core Services** | Asset, User, Settings services | 3-4 weeks | Low |
+| **Phase 3: Network Features** | Scanner, Ping, Discovery | 4-6 weeks | Medium |
+| **Phase 4: Packet Capture** | Sniffer, Storm, Protocol analysis | 6-8 weeks | High |
+| **Phase 5: Agent System** | Agent management, C2 WebSocket, code gen | 4-6 weeks | Medium |
+| **Phase 6: Advanced Features** | Workflows, CVE lookup, Exploits | 4-6 weeks | Medium |
+| **Phase 7: Integration** | WebSocket handlers, POV middleware | 2-3 weeks | Low |
+| **Phase 8: Testing & Polish** | Unit tests, integration tests, fixes | 4-6 weeks | Medium |
+
+**Total Estimated Duration**: 30-43 weeks (~7-10 months)
+
+### 4.2 Resource Requirements
+
+| Role | FTE | Duration |
+|------|-----|----------|
+| Senior Go Developer | 2 | 6-10 months |
+| Network/Security Expert | 0.5 | 6-10 months |
+| DevOps Engineer | 0.25 | 3 months |
+| QA Engineer | 0.5 | 4 months |
+
+---
+
+## 5. Benefits of Go Port
+
+### 5.1 Performance Improvements
+
+| Metric | Python (Current) | Go (Expected) | Improvement |
+|--------|-----------------|---------------|-------------|
+| Memory Usage | 200-500 MB | 50-150 MB | 3-5x lower |
+| Startup Time | 2-5 seconds | <100ms | 20-50x faster |
+| Request Latency | 5-20ms | 1-5ms | 3-5x faster |
+| Concurrent Connections | 1,000-5,000 | 50,000+ | 10x+ higher |
+| Binary Size | N/A (runtime) | 20-50 MB | Single binary |
+
+### 5.2 Deployment Benefits
+
+| Benefit | Description |
+|---------|-------------|
+| **Single Binary** | No Python runtime, no pip dependencies |
+| **Cross-compilation** | Easy builds for linux/windows/macos/arm |
+| **Static Linking** | No dynamic library issues |
+| **Container Size** | 20-50 MB vs 500+ MB |
+| **Startup Speed** | Instant vs Python interpreter startup |
+
+### 5.3 Operational Benefits
+
+| Benefit | Description |
+|---------|-------------|
+| **Type Safety** | Compile-time error detection |
+| **Goroutines** | Efficient concurrency without async/await complexity |
+| **Memory Safety** | No GIL, predictable garbage collection |
+| **Dependency Management** | Go modules are simpler than pip |
+
+---
+
+## 6. Challenges and Risks
+
+### 6.1 Technical Challenges
+
+| Challenge | Severity | Mitigation |
+|-----------|----------|------------|
+| Scapy feature parity | High | Use gopacket + raw sockets; accept some feature loss |
+| Dynamic typing loss | Medium | Use interfaces and generics wisely |
+| Less mature web ecosystem | Low | Gin/Echo are production-ready |
+| Database migrations | Low | Use golang-migrate with proper tooling |
+
+### 6.2 Project Risks
+
+| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
+|------|-------------|--------|------------|
+| Feature parity delays | High | Medium | Prioritize core features; defer advanced features |
+| Network capture bugs | Medium | High | Extensive testing; parallel development with Python |
+| Integration issues | Medium | Medium | Keep API contract; test with existing frontend |
+| Team ramp-up | Medium | Low | Hire experienced Go developers |
+
+### 6.3 What Won't Port Easily
+
+1. **Scapy's protocol auto-detection** - gopacket requires explicit layer definitions
+2. **Dynamic Python agent generation** - But Go agents already exist
+3. **Scapy's packet crafting DSL** - Need manual packet construction
+4. **Python REPL debugging** - Different debugging approach
+
+---
+
+## 7. Alternative Strategies
+
+### 7.1 Strategy A: Full Go Port (Recommended for Performance)
+
+- **Effort**: 6-10 months
+- **Risk**: Medium-High
+- **Result**: Maximum performance, single binary deployment
+
+### 7.2 Strategy B: Hybrid Approach
+
+- Keep packet capture (SnifferService) in Python as microservice
+- Port REST API and other services to Go
+- **Effort**: 4-6 months
+- **Risk**: Low-Medium
+- **Result**: Gradual migration, reduced risk
+
+### 7.3 Strategy C: Performance Optimization in Python
+
+- Use Cython for performance-critical paths
+- Add Rust/C extensions for packet handling
+- Optimize async patterns
+- **Effort**: 2-3 months
+- **Risk**: Low
+- **Result**: 2-3x performance improvement with minimal code changes
+
+### 7.4 Strategy D: Go Backend + Keep Critical Python Services
+
+- Port 80% of backend to Go
+- Keep SnifferService and complex packet handling in Python as gRPC service
+- **Effort**: 5-7 months
+- **Risk**: Medium
+- **Result**: Best of both worlds
+
+---
+
+## 8. Recommendation
+
+### Short-term (0-3 months)
+1. **Optimize Python backend** with asyncio improvements and caching
+2. **Profile bottlenecks** to identify real performance issues
+3. **Create Go prototype** of 1-2 critical services to validate approach
+
+### Medium-term (3-12 months)
+If Go port is still desired:
+1. **Start with Strategy D** (hybrid approach)
+2. Port API layer and simple services first
+3. Keep SnifferService in Python initially
+4. Gradually replace Python components
+
+### Decision Matrix
+
+| Factor | Weight | Python (Stay) | Go (Port) |
+|--------|--------|---------------|-----------|
+| Development Speed | 20% | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ |
+| Performance | 25% | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| Maintainability | 15% | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| Deployment | 15% | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
+| Library Ecosystem | 15% | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ |
+| Team Expertise | 10% | Depends | Depends |
+
+**Weighted Score**: 
+- Python: 4.0/5.0
+- Go: 4.1/5.0
+
+The scores are close, indicating Go port is viable but not dramatically better for all use cases.
+
+---
+
+## 9. Detailed Component Mapping
+
+### 9.1 Models (SQLAlchemy → GORM)
+
+**Python SQLAlchemy:**
+```python
+class Asset(Base):
+    id = Column(UUID, primary_key=True)
+    name = Column(String, nullable=False)
+    ip_address = Column(String)
+    status = Column(Enum(AssetStatus))
+```
+
+**Go GORM Equivalent:**
+```go
+type Asset struct {
+    ID        uuid.UUID `gorm:"type:uuid;primaryKey"`
+    Name      string    `gorm:"not null"`
+    IPAddress string
+    Status    AssetStatus
+    CreatedAt time.Time
+    UpdatedAt time.Time
+}
+```
+
+### 9.2 API Endpoints (FastAPI → Gin)
+
+```python
+# Python FastAPI
+@router.get("/assets/{asset_id}")
+async def get_asset(asset_id: UUID, db: AsyncSession = Depends(get_db)):
+    return await AssetService.get_asset(db, asset_id)
+```
+
+```go
+// Go Gin Equivalent
+func GetAsset(c *gin.Context) {
+    assetID := c.Param("asset_id")
+    asset, err := services.GetAsset(c.Request.Context(), assetID)
+    if err != nil {
+        // Handle different error types appropriately
+        if errors.Is(err, services.ErrNotFound) {
+            c.JSON(http.StatusNotFound, gin.H{"error": "Asset not found"})
+        } else {
+            c.JSON(http.StatusInternalServerError, gin.H{"error": "Internal server error"})
+        }
+        return
+    }
+    c.JSON(http.StatusOK, asset)
+}
+```
+
+### 9.3 Packet Capture (Scapy → gopacket)
+
+```python
+# Python Scapy
+def _packet_callback(self, packet):
+    if IP in packet:
+        packet_data["source"] = packet[IP].src
+        packet_data["destination"] = packet[IP].dst
+```
+
+```go
+// Go gopacket Equivalent
+func (s *SnifferService) packetCallback(packet gopacket.Packet) {
+    if ipLayer := packet.Layer(layers.LayerTypeIPv4); ipLayer != nil {
+        ip, _ := ipLayer.(*layers.IPv4)
+        packetData.Source = ip.SrcIP.String()
+        packetData.Destination = ip.DstIP.String()
+    }
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## 10. Conclusion
+
+Porting NOP to Go is **feasible and would provide tangible benefits** in performance, deployment, and resource usage. However, it requires:
+
+1. **Significant investment** (7-10 months, 2-3 developers)
+2. **Expertise in both Go and network programming**
+3. **Acceptance of some feature compromises** (especially Scapy-equivalent functionality)
+
+The **recommended approach** is a **hybrid migration** (Strategy D), starting with the API layer and gradually porting services while keeping complex packet handling in Python until a stable Go replacement is validated.
+
+---
+
+## 11. Detailed Implementation Plan (If I Were to Do It)
+
+### 11.1 Phase-by-Phase Implementation
+
+#### **Week 1-2: Project Scaffold**
+```
+go-nop/
+├── cmd/
+│   └── server/
+│       └── main.go           # Entry point
+├── internal/
+│   ├── api/                   # HTTP handlers (Gin)
+│   │   ├── handlers/
+│   │   ├── middleware/
+│   │   └── routes.go
+│   ├── models/                # GORM models
+│   ├── services/              # Business logic
+│   ├── repository/            # Database layer
+│   └── config/                # Configuration
+├── pkg/
+│   ├── sniffer/               # gopacket integration
+│   └── scanner/               # nmap wrapper
+├── go.mod
+├── go.sum
+└── Dockerfile
+```
+
+**Exact tasks:**
+1. Initialize Go module: `go mod init github.com/goranjovic55/nop-go`
+2. Set up Gin router with CORS, auth middleware
+3. Create GORM connection pool for PostgreSQL
+4. Create Redis client wrapper
+5. Port config loading (Viper)
+
+#### **Week 3-4: Port All Models (13 files → 13 Go structs)**
+
+| Python Model | Go Struct | Estimated Time |
+|--------------|-----------|----------------|
+| `User` | `models/user.go` | 3 hours |
+| `Asset` | `models/asset.go` | 3 hours |
+| `Agent` | `models/agent.go` | 5 hours |
+| `Scan` | `models/scan.go` | 4 hours |
+| `Flow` | `models/flow.go` | 3 hours |
+| `Credential` | `models/credential.go` | 4 hours |
+| `Workflow` | `models/workflow.go` | 6 hours |
+| `Vulnerability` | `models/vulnerability.go` | 4 hours |
+| `Event` | `models/event.go` | 3 hours |
+| `Settings` | `models/settings.go` | 4 hours |
+| `Topology` | `models/topology.go` | 3 hours |
+| `CVECache` | `models/cve_cache.go` | 3 hours |
+| `ExploitModule` | `models/exploit_module.go` | 4 hours |
+
+**Total: ~49 hours (6-7 days)**
+
+#### **Week 5-8: Port Services (16 services)**
+
+| Service | Complexity | Go Approach | Time |
+|---------|------------|-------------|------|
+| `user_service.py` | Low | Direct port with bcrypt | 1 day |
+| `asset_service.py` | Low | GORM CRUD | 1 day |
+| `dashboard_service.py` | Low | Aggregation queries | 1 day |
+| `discovery_service.py` | Medium | Event handling | 2 days |
+| `cve_lookup.py` | Medium | HTTP client + cache | 2 days |
+| `scanner.py` | Medium | os/exec + XML parsing | 3 days |
+| `PingService.py` | Medium | net, icmp packages | 2 days |
+| `version_detection.py` | Medium | Port detection logic | 2 days |
+| `exploit_match.py` | Low | JSON matching | 1 day |
+| `access_hub.py` | Medium | SSH/FTP clients | 3 days |
+| `guacamole.py` | Medium | HTTP tunneling | 2 days |
+| `agent_service.py` | High | Template generation | 5 days |
+| `agent_socks_proxy.py` | High | SOCKS5 server | 4 days |
+| `agent_data_service.py` | Medium | Data ingestion | 2 days |
+| `workflow_executor.py` | High | State machine | 5 days |
+| **`SnifferService.py`** | **Very High** | **gopacket + raw sockets** | **10-15 days** |
+
+#### **Week 9-12: Port API Endpoints (~20 endpoint files)**
+
+This is mostly mechanical work:
+- Convert FastAPI decorators to Gin handlers
+- Port Pydantic schemas to Go structs with validation tags
+- Implement JWT middleware
+- Set up WebSocket handlers with gorilla/websocket
+
+#### **Week 13-16: Integration & Testing**
+
+1. Integration tests for each endpoint
+2. WebSocket connection testing
+3. Packet capture validation
+4. Agent C2 protocol testing
+5. Load testing
+
+### 11.2 What Would Work on First Try
+
+| Component | First Try Success? | Why |
+|-----------|-------------------|-----|
+| **Models/Database** | ✅ 95% | GORM is mature, similar patterns |
+| **REST API endpoints** | ✅ 90% | Mechanical translation |
+| **Authentication/JWT** | ✅ 95% | golang-jwt is well-documented |
+| **Redis caching** | ✅ 95% | go-redis is mature |
+| **nmap wrapper** | ✅ 85% | Same subprocess approach |
+| **SOCKS proxy** | ⚠️ 70% | Edge cases in protocol |
+| **WebSocket handlers** | ⚠️ 75% | Connection management differs |
+| **Agent C2 protocol** | ⚠️ 70% | Encryption/encoding edge cases |
+| **Workflow executor** | ⚠️ 60% | Complex state machine |
+| **SnifferService** | ❌ 40% | Scapy vs gopacket differences |
+| **Storm (packet crafting)** | ❌ 30% | Raw socket edge cases |
+
+### 11.3 Expected Issues and Fixes
+
+#### Issue 1: gopacket Layer Parsing
+**Problem**: Scapy auto-detects protocol layers; gopacket requires explicit handling.
+
+```go
+// Will need explicit layer handling for each protocol
+func parsePacket(packet gopacket.Packet) {
+    // Each layer must be explicitly checked
+    if ethLayer := packet.Layer(layers.LayerTypeEthernet); ethLayer != nil {
+        eth := ethLayer.(*layers.Ethernet)
+        // ...
+    }
+    if ipLayer := packet.Layer(layers.LayerTypeIPv4); ipLayer != nil {
+        ip := ipLayer.(*layers.IPv4)
+        // ...
+    }
+    // Need to handle IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, ARP, DNS, HTTP, TLS separately
+    // This is ~200-300 lines vs Scapy's ~50 lines
+}
+```
+
+**Fix time**: 2-3 days of additional debugging
+
+#### Issue 2: Raw Socket Permissions
+**Problem**: Go requires explicit capabilities for raw sockets.
+
+```dockerfile
+# Docker capability needed
+cap_add:
+  - NET_RAW
+  - NET_ADMIN
+```
+
+**Fix time**: 1 day
+
+#### Issue 3: Async Pattern Differences
+**Problem**: Python's async/await vs Go's goroutines have different cancellation patterns.
+
+```go
+// Go needs explicit context cancellation
+func (s *SnifferService) StartCapture(ctx context.Context) {
+    go func() {
+        for {
+            select {
+            case <-ctx.Done():
+                return
+            case packet := <-s.packets:
+                s.processPacket(packet)
+            }
+        }
+    }()
+}
+```
+
+**Fix time**: 1-2 days per service
+
+#### Issue 4: WebSocket Connection State
+**Problem**: Python's websockets library handles reconnection differently than gorilla/websocket.
+
+**Fix time**: 2-3 days
+
+### 11.4 Realistic Timeline with Debugging
+
+| Phase | Optimistic | Realistic | Pessimistic |
+|-------|------------|-----------|-------------|
+| Foundation + Models | 4 weeks | 5 weeks | 7 weeks |
+| Services (excluding Sniffer) | 6 weeks | 8 weeks | 12 weeks |
+| SnifferService | 3 weeks | 5 weeks | 8 weeks |
+| API Endpoints | 3 weeks | 4 weeks | 6 weeks |
+| Integration & Bugs | 4 weeks | 6 weeks | 10 weeks |
+| **Total** | **20 weeks** | **28 weeks** | **43 weeks** |
+
+### 11.5 First Try Success Rate Estimate
+
+**Overall "Works on First Try" Probability: ~15-25%**
+
+Breaking it down mathematically (assuming independent component failures):
+- **Core API functionality**: 80% would work on first deployment
+- **Database operations**: 95% would work
+- **Packet capture**: 40% would work (needs debugging)
+- **Agent C2 communication**: 60% would work
+- **All features fully functional**: 80% × 95% × 40% × 60% ≈ **18%**
+
+However, with partial functionality approach:
+- **MVP deployment (80% features)**: ~50-60% first-try success
+- **Production-ready (all features)**: ~15-25% first-try success
+
+### 11.6 What I Would Do Differently (To Maximize First-Try Success)
+
+1. **Keep SnifferService in Python** for v1.0 (gRPC bridge)
+2. **Write comprehensive unit tests BEFORE porting** each service
+3. **Port one endpoint at a time** and verify with existing frontend
+4. **Use interface-based design** to swap implementations
+5. **Run Python and Go backends in parallel** during transition
+
+---
+
+## 12. Summary: Would It Work on First Try?
+
+**Short answer: No, not fully.**
+
+**Long answer**: 
+- ~60-70% of functionality would work on first deployment
+- Database, basic REST APIs, and authentication would work immediately
+- Packet capture, agent communication, and complex features would need 2-4 weeks of debugging
+- Full feature parity would take an additional 4-8 weeks after initial "working" deployment
+- Mathematical probability of all components working first try: **~18%**
+
+**My confidence level**: I could deliver a working Go backend that passes 80% of integration tests in **5-6 months**. Reaching 100% feature parity with all edge cases would take **8-10 months**.
+
+---
+
+## Appendix: Quick Reference
+
+### File Count Summary
+- Python backend files: 69
+- TypeScript frontend files: 38
+- Total lines of code: ~28,777
+
+### Key Dependencies to Replace
+1. FastAPI → Gin/Echo
+2. SQLAlchemy → GORM
+3. Scapy → gopacket
+4. Pydantic → Go structs + validator
+5. websockets → gorilla/websocket
+
+### Existing Go Code in Project
+- Agent generation templates already include Go agent code (~800 LOC)
+- This can serve as reference for Go patterns in the project