Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 11:36 UTC

RustCrypto / block-modes

Collection of generic block mode algorithms written in pure Rust

RustNo license detected★ 95 stars⑂ 23 forkssince Nov 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

RustCrypto/block-modes holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (71/100) and lowest on Vitality (31/100). It was last updated 26 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 55 is calibrated to 57 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
2,395 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.iocbc0.2.111,308,12914119 days agoblock-modecipherscryptocryptographyno-std
crates.ioctr0.10.117,092,66328119 days agoblock-modecipherscryptostream-ciphercryptographyno-std
crates.iocts0.7.096714159 days agoblock-modecipherscryptocryptographyno-std
crates.ioecb0.2.12,577,501626 days agoblock-modecipherscryptocryptographyno-std
crates.ioige0.2.1459119 days agoblock-modecipherscryptocryptographyno-std
crates.ioofb0.7.1133,04815119 days agoblock-modecipherscryptostream-ciphercryptographyno-std
crates.iocfb80.9.136,13216119 days agoblock-modecipherscryptostream-ciphercryptographyno-std
crates.iopcbc0.2.11,00610119 days agoblock-modecipherscryptocryptographyno-std

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

31At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

51Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 26 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
12.9/18Commit volume — 26 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year26
human_commit_share0.944
days_since_last_push26
active_weeks_last_year12

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no 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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

46Weak
How it's scored
32/60Stars — 95 stars
11.2/25Forks — 23 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks23
stars95
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no 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_badges10
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 31,149,491 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescbc, ctr, cts, ecb, ige, ofb, cfb8, pcbc
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads327,750,575
monthly_downloads31,149,491
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?

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 56% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.565

Issue & PR responsiveness

73Good
How it's scored
34.7/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance — 81/93 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs81
open_issues4
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.826
closed_unmerged_prs12
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.

Ownership & stewardship

78Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
24.3/25Owner reach — 2,395 followers of RustCrypto
23.7/25Track record — 40 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,395
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginRustCrypto
public_repos40
account_age_days3,647

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 8 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 26 days ago
20/20Version history — 28 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescbc, ctr, cts, ecb, ige, ofb, cfb8, pcbc
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish26

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

82Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 13 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .clippy.toml, Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), belt-ctr/Cargo.toml ([lints]), cbc/Cargo.toml ([lints]), cfb-mode/Cargo.toml ([lints]), cfb8/Cargo.toml ([lints]), ctr/Cargo.toml ([lints]), cts/Cargo.toml ([lints]), ecb/Cargo.toml ([lints]), ige/Cargo.toml ([lints]), ofb/Cargo.toml ([lints]), pcbc/Cargo.toml ([lints])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/cbc
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/cbc
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

Security posture

34At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 27 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.6
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier34
security_posture_before_jurisdiction46
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 advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages11
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the crates:cbc@0.2.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 11 packages. 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.

67Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 76 of 85 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.894
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

75Good
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, belt-ctr/Cargo.toml, cbc/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .clippy.toml, Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), belt-ctr/Cargo.toml ([lints]), cbc/Cargo.toml ([lints]), cfb-mode/Cargo.toml ([lints]), cfb8/Cargo.toml ([lints]), ctr/Cargo.toml ([lints]), cts/Cargo.toml ([lints]), ecb/Cargo.toml ([lints]), ige/Cargo.toml ([lints]), ofb/Cargo.toml ([lints]), pcbc/Cargo.toml ([lints])
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 90
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 90 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, belt-ctr/Cargo.toml, cbc/Cargo.toml, cfb-mode/Cargo.toml, cfb8/Cargo.toml, ctr/Cargo.toml, cts/Cargo.toml, ecb/Cargo.toml, ige/Cargo.toml, ofb/Cargo.toml, pcbc/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.056

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/69 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes9,938
source_files_sampled69
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

95GitHub stars
14contributors
26commits, last 12 months
26days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
4open 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 ★ / 23 ⇿
0Stars
23Forks

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.

048121620242312022-052024-062026-08

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 11:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests27 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 6/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iocipher0.5.2belt-ctr/Cargo.toml
crates.iobelt-block0.2belt-ctr/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5.2cbc/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5.2cfb-mode/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5.2cfb8/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5.2ctr/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5cts/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5ecb/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5.2ige/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5.2ofb/Cargo.toml
crates.iocipher0.5.2pcbc/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 20 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobelt-block—direct
crates.iobelt-block0.2.0direct
crates.iocipher—direct
crates.iocipher0.5.2direct
crates.ioaes—indirect
crates.ioaes0.9.2indirect
crates.ioblobby0.4.0indirect
crates.ioblock-buffer0.12.1indirect
crates.ioblock-padding0.4.2indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.iocpubits0.1.1indirect
crates.iocpufeatures0.3.0indirect
crates.iocrypto-common0.2.2indirect
crates.iohex-literal—indirect
crates.iohex-literal1.1.0indirect
crates.iohybrid-array0.4.14indirect
crates.ioinout0.2.2indirect
crates.iokuznyechik—indirect
crates.iokuznyechik0.9.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.189indirect
crates.iomagma—indirect
crates.iomagma0.10.0indirect
crates.iotypenum1.20.1indirect
crates.iozeroize1.9.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:cbc@0.2.1 pulls in 11 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with RustCrypto/block-modes. Read them side by side →

960xMiden/miden-vmSTARK-based virtual machineExceptional93rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoinRust Bitcoin libraryExceptional92dusk-network/Poseidon252Reference implementation for the Poseidon Snark-friendly Hash algorithm. Excellent89awslabs/mls-rsAn implementation of Messaging Layer Security (RFC 9420)Excellent88RustCrypto/crypto-bigintCryptography-oriented big integer library with constant-time, stack-allocated (no_std-friendly) implementations of modern formulasExcellent87dalek-cryptography/curve25519-dalekA pure-Rust implementation of group operations on Ristretto and Curve25519Excellent

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — crates.io.