Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 21:17 UTC

RustCrypto / hashes

Collection of cryptographic hash functions written in pure Rust

RustNo license detected★ 2,257 stars⑂ 335 forkssince Nov 2016View on GitHub ↗

#cryptographic-hash-functions #blake2 #gost #streebog #groestl #md2 #md4 #md5 #sha1 #sha2 #sha3 #whirlpool #digest #cryptography #rust #k12 #hash #ripemd #sm3

RustCrypto/hashes 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 Security (47/100). It was last updated 11 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 63 is calibrated to 71 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

2,371 followers40 public repossince Sep 2016

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
crates.io	jh	0.2.0	33,408	5	148 days ago	digest hash jh cryptography no-std
crates.io	fsb	0.2.0	31,056	11	148 days ago	digest fsb hash cryptography no-std
crates.io	md2	0.11.0	134,586	16	148 days ago	digest hash md2 cryptography no-std
crates.io	md4	0.11.0	487,064	18	148 days ago	digest hash md4 cryptography no-std
crates.io	md-5	0.11.0	28,168,485	31	148 days ago	digest hash md5 cryptography no-std
crates.io	sm3	0.5.0	416,061	18	148 days ago	digest hash sm3 cryptography no-std
crates.io	sha1	0.11.0	41,623,836	35	43 days ago	crypto digest hash sha1 cryptography no-std
crates.io	sha2	0.11.0	76,024,424	50	150 days ago	digest hash sha2 cryptography no-std

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

48Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

79Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 11 days ago
22.2/36	Commit cadence — 32/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 128 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	128
human_commit_share	0.91
days_since_last_push	11
active_weeks_last_year	32

Release discipline

1Critical

How it's scored

0/27	Ships releases — no releases published
0/36	Release recency — no releases
0/27	Release cadence — no releases
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count

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?

67Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

84Excellent

How it's scored

54.4/60	Stars — 2,257 stars
21/25	Forks — 335 forks
8.1/15	Watchers — 30 watchers

Inputs used

forks	335
stars	2,257
watchers	30
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
0/22.5	License — no license file detected
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	no
readme_badges	23
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 146,918,920 downloads/month across crates
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	jh, fsb, md2, md4, md-5, sm3, sha1, sha2
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates
total_downloads	1,665,912,549
monthly_downloads	146,918,920
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

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

60Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.5/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 49% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 89 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	89
top_contributor_share	0.491

Issue & PR responsiveness

73Good

How it's scored

38.2/42	Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
23.7/30	PR acceptance — 524/663 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	524
open_issues	20
closed_issues	203
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.91
closed_unmerged_prs	139
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

78Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
24.3/25	Owner reach — 2,371 followers of RustCrypto
23.7/25	Track record — 40 public repos, account ~9 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2,371
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	RustCrypto
public_repos	40
account_age_days	3,622

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 8 package(s) on crates
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 43 days ago
20/20	Version history — 50 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	jh, fsb, md2, md4, md-5, sm3, sha1, sha2
ecosystems	crates
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	43

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

82Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 26 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — md5/Cargo.toml ([lints]), sha1/Cargo.toml ([lints]), sha2/Cargo.toml ([lints])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/jh
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 19 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	cryptographic-hash-functions, blake2, gost, streebog, groestl, md2, md4, md5, sha1, sha2, sha3, whirlpool, digest, cryptography, rust, k12, hash, ripemd, sm3
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.rs/jh
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

34At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 contributor organization profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 27 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 5/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5	License — license file not detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.7
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	75
security_posture_after_multiplier	43
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	57

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

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	13
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the crates:jh@0.2.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 13 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

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 86 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.945
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

75Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, ascon-hash256/Cargo.toml, bash-hash/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — md5/Cargo.toml ([lints]), sha1/Cargo.toml ([lints]), sha2/Cargo.toml ([lints])
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	Cargo.toml, ascon-hash256/Cargo.toml, bash-hash/Cargo.toml, belt-hash/Cargo.toml, blake2/Cargo.toml, fsb/Cargo.toml, gost94/Cargo.toml, groestl/Cargo.toml, jh/Cargo.toml, kupyna/Cargo.toml, md2/Cargo.toml, md4/Cargo.toml, md5/Cargo.toml, ripemd/Cargo.toml, sha1-checked/Cargo.toml, sha1/Cargo.toml, sha2/Cargo.toml, sha3/Cargo.toml, shabal/Cargo.toml, skein/Cargo.toml, sm3/Cargo.toml, streebog/Cargo.toml, tiger/Cargo.toml, whirlpool/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.09

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/161 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	55,742
source_files_sampled	161
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

2,257GitHub stars

89contributors

128commits, last 12 months

11days since last push

0releases

2bus factor

20open 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 ★ / 335 ⇿

0Stars

335Forks

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.

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10

5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 21:16 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9	CI-Tests	27 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1	Code-Review	Found 5/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10	Contributors	project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
0	License	license file not detected
10	Maintained	12 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 37

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	ascon-hash256/Cargo.toml
crates.io	ascon	`0.5`	ascon-hash256/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	bash-hash/Cargo.toml
crates.io	bash-f	`0.1`	bash-hash/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	belt-hash/Cargo.toml
crates.io	belt-block	`0.2`	belt-hash/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	blake2/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	fsb/Cargo.toml
crates.io	whirlpool	`0.11.0-rc.3`	fsb/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	gost94/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	groestl/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	jh/Cargo.toml
crates.io	hex-literal	`1`	jh/Cargo.toml
crates.io	simd	`0.2.6`	jh/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	kupyna/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	md2/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	md4/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	md5/Cargo.toml
crates.io	cfg-if	`1`	md5/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	ripemd/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	sha1-checked/Cargo.toml
crates.io	sha1	`0.11.0-rc.5`	sha1-checked/Cargo.toml
crates.io	zeroize	`1.8`	sha1-checked/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	sha1/Cargo.toml
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0`	sha1/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	sha2/Cargo.toml
crates.io	cfg-if	`1`	sha2/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	sha3/Cargo.toml
crates.io	sponge-cursor	`0.1`	sha3/Cargo.toml
crates.io	keccak	`0.2`	sha3/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	shabal/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	skein/Cargo.toml
crates.io	threefish	`0.6`	skein/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	sm3/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	streebog/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	tiger/Cargo.toml
crates.io	digest	`0.11`	whirlpool/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 41

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 22 direct and 19 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	ascon	`—`	direct
crates.io	ascon	`0.5.0`	direct
crates.io	bash-f	`—`	direct
crates.io	bash-f	`0.1.0`	direct
crates.io	belt-block	`—`	direct
crates.io	belt-block	`0.2.0`	direct
crates.io	cfg-if	`—`	direct
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	direct
crates.io	digest	`—`	direct
crates.io	digest	`0.11.3`	direct
crates.io	hex-literal	`—`	direct
crates.io	hex-literal	`1.1.0`	direct
crates.io	keccak	`—`	direct
crates.io	keccak	`0.2.0`	direct
crates.io	sha1	`—`	direct
crates.io	sponge-cursor	`—`	direct
crates.io	sponge-cursor	`0.1.0`	direct
crates.io	threefish	`—`	direct
crates.io	threefish	`0.6.0`	direct
crates.io	whirlpool	`—`	direct
crates.io	zeroize	`—`	direct
crates.io	zeroize	`1.9.0`	direct
crates.io	blobby	`0.4.0`	indirect
crates.io	block-buffer	`0.12.1`	indirect
crates.io	cmov	`0.5.4`	indirect
crates.io	const-oid	`0.10.2`	indirect
crates.io	cpufeatures	`—`	indirect
crates.io	cpufeatures	`0.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	crypto-common	`0.2.2`	indirect
crates.io	ctutils	`0.4.2`	indirect
crates.io	hybrid-array	`0.4.13`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.186`	indirect
crates.io	ppv-lite86	`—`	indirect
crates.io	ppv-lite86	`0.2.21`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.106`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.46`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.118`	indirect
crates.io	typenum	`1.20.1`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.24`	indirect
crates.io	zerocopy	`0.8.54`	indirect
crates.io	zerocopy-derive	`0.8.54`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing crates:jh@0.2.0 pulls in 13 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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records