Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-08 19:43 UTC

RustCrypto / MACs

Message authentication code algorithms written in pure Rust

RustNo license detected★ 371 stars⑂ 54 forkssince Jul 2017View on GitHub ↗

RustCrypto/MACs holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (76/100) and lowest on Vitality (44/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

34
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Rust CryptoOrganization
2,350 followers40 public repossince Sep 2016

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iocmac0.8.01,342,02722120 days agocryptomaccmacomaccryptographyno-std
crates.iohmac0.13.041,777,89038131 days agocryptomacdigesthmaccryptographyno-std
crates.iopmac0.8.01,39618120 days agocryptomacpmaccryptographyno-std
crates.iocbc-mac0.2.038311120 days agocryptomacdaa
crates.iobelt-mac0.2.0573120 days agocryptomacbelt-maccryptographyno-std
crates.ioretail-mac0.1.0524120 days agocryptomac

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

44Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 4 days ago
18/36Commit cadence26/52 weeks with commits
15.6/18Commit volume54 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year54
human_commit_share0.78
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year26
How it's scored
0/27Ships releasesno releases published
0/36Release recencyno releases
0/27Release cadenceno releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.7/60Stars371 stars
14.4/25Forks54 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks54
stars371
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads43,121,805 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescmac, hmac, pmac, cbc-mac, belt-mac, retail-mac
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads527,305,769
monthly_downloads43,121,805
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.509
How it's scored
38.9/42Issue resolution93% of issues closed
23.8/30PR acceptance199/251 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs199
open_issues2
closed_issues25
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.926
closed_unmerged_prs52
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
24.2/25Owner reach2,350 followers of RustCrypto
23.7/25Track record40 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,350
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginRustCrypto
public_repos40
account_age_days3,608
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable6 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 120 days ago
20/20Version history38 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescmac, hmac, pmac, cbc-mac, belt-mac, retail-mac
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish120

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

63Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rs/cmac
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/cmac
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
1.5/7.5Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.1
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier38
security_posture_before_jurisdiction51
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages26
unassessed_packages13
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 26 resolved dependencies against OSV. 13 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history74 of 78 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.949
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, belt-mac/Cargo.toml, cbc-mac/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance22 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, belt-mac/Cargo.toml, cbc-mac/Cargo.toml, cmac/Cargo.toml, hmac/Cargo.toml, pmac/Cargo.toml, retail-mac/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.22
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/25 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes7,654
source_files_sampled25
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

371GitHub stars
13contributors
54commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
2open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 54 ⇿
0Stars
54Forks

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

01020304050605322018-042022-062026-07

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-08-08 19:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
2Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iobelt-block0.2belt-mac/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5belt-mac/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11belt-mac/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5cbc-mac/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11cbc-mac/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5cmac/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11cmac/Cargo.toml
crates.iodbl0.5cmac/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11.2hmac/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5pmac/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11pmac/Cargo.toml
crates.iodbl0.5pmac/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5retail-mac/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11retail-mac/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 31 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobelt-blockdirect
crates.iobelt-block0.2.0direct
crates.iocipherdirect
crates.iocipher0.5.2direct
crates.iodbldirect
crates.iodbl0.5.0direct
crates.iodigestdirect
crates.iodigest0.11.3direct
crates.ioaesindirect
crates.ioaes0.9.1indirect
crates.ioblobby0.4.0indirect
crates.ioblock-buffer0.12.1indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.iocmov0.5.4indirect
crates.iocpubits0.1.1indirect
crates.iocpufeatures0.3.0indirect
crates.iocrypto-common0.2.2indirect
crates.ioctutils0.4.2indirect
crates.iodesindirect
crates.iodes0.9.0indirect
crates.iohex-literalindirect
crates.iohex-literal1.1.0indirect
crates.iohybrid-array0.4.12indirect
crates.ioinout0.2.2indirect
crates.iokuznyechikindirect
crates.iokuznyechik0.9.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.186indirect
crates.iomagmaindirect
crates.iomagma0.10.0indirect
crates.iomd-5indirect
crates.iomd-50.11.0indirect
crates.iosha1indirect
crates.iosha10.11.0indirect
crates.iosha2indirect
crates.iosha20.11.0indirect
crates.iostreebogindirect
crates.iostreebog0.11.0indirect
crates.iotypenum1.20.1indirect
crates.iozeroize1.9.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 26 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 13 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticscrates.io.