Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 13:51 UTC

RustCrypto / hashes

Collection of cryptographic hash functions written in pure Rust

RustNo license detected★ 2,276 stars⑂ 347 forkssince Nov 2016View on GitHub ↗

RustCrypto/hashes holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (77/100) and lowest on Security (47/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account 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 65 is calibrated to 75 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
2,434 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.iojh0.2.030,5415206 days agohashdigestjhcryptographyno-std
crates.iofsb0.2.027,72611206 days agohashdigestfsbcryptographyno-std
crates.iomd20.11.0207,42716206 days agohashdigestmd2cryptographyno-std
crates.iomd40.11.0512,98918206 days agohashdigestmd4cryptographyno-std
crates.iomd-50.11.039,834,08331206 days agohashmd5digestcryptographyno-std
crates.iosm30.5.0517,39718206 days agohashdigestsm3cryptographyno-std
crates.iosha10.11.060,284,67435101 days agohashsha1cryptodigestcryptographyno-std
crates.iosha20.11.1104,601,831517 days agohashsha2digestcryptographyno-std

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

53Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 127 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year127
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year33
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?

67Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
54.5/60Stars — 2,276 stars
21.2/25Forks — 347 forks
8/15Watchers — 29 watchers
Inputs used
forks347
stars2,276
watchers29
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges23
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 206,016,668 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesjh, fsb, md2, md4, md-5, sm3, sha1, sha2
dependents—
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads2,109,609,200
monthly_downloads206,016,668
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?

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 49% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 92 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled92
top_contributor_share0.492
How it's scored
38.3/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
23.6/30PR acceptance — 538/683 decided PRs merged
10.8/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 5/6 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs538
open_issues20
closed_issues205
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d11
prs_decided_30d12
issue_closed_ratio0.911
closed_unmerged_prs145
first_time_authors_30d5
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d6
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
24.3/25Owner reach — 2,434 followers of RustCrypto
23.7/25Track record — 40 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,434
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginRustCrypto
public_repos40
account_age_days3,680

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 8 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 7 days ago
20/20Version history — 51 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjh, fsb, md2, md4, md-5, sm3, sha1, sha2
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish7

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 26 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — md5/Cargo.toml ([lints]), sha1/Cargo.toml ([lints]), sha2/Cargo.toml ([lints])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/jh
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 19 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscryptographic-hash-functions, blake2, gost, streebog, groestl, md2, md4, md5, sha1, sha2, sha3, whirlpool, digest, cryptography, rust, k12, hash, ripemd, sm3
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/jh
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-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 29 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
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 10/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 19 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_aggregate5.9
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier44
security_posture_before_jurisdiction59
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_packages13
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: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
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 88 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.946
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, ascon-hash256/Cargo.toml, bash-hash/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — md5/Cargo.toml ([lints]), sha1/Cargo.toml ([lints]), sha2/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 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 100 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, 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_share0.07
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/162 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes55,742
source_files_sampled162
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,276GitHub stars
92contributors
127commits, last 12 months
0days 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 ★ / 347 ⇿
0Stars
347Forks

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.

012525037532352017-012021-112026-10

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10
5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 13:50 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests29 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
4Code-ReviewFound 10/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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 37
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iodigest0.11ascon-hash256/Cargo.toml
crates.ioascon0.5ascon-hash256/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11bash-hash/Cargo.toml
crates.iobash-f0.1bash-hash/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11belt-hash/Cargo.toml
crates.iobelt-block0.2belt-hash/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11blake2/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11fsb/Cargo.toml
crates.iowhirlpool0.11.0-rc.3fsb/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11gost94/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11groestl/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11jh/Cargo.toml
crates.iohex-literal1jh/Cargo.toml
crates.iosimd0.2.6jh/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11kupyna/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11md2/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11md4/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11md5/Cargo.toml
crates.iocfg-if1md5/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11ripemd/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11sha1-checked/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha10.11.0-rc.5sha1-checked/Cargo.toml
crates.iozeroize1.8sha1-checked/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11sha1/Cargo.toml
crates.iocfg-if1.0sha1/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11sha2/Cargo.toml
crates.iocfg-if1sha2/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11sha3/Cargo.toml
crates.iosponge-cursor0.1sha3/Cargo.toml
crates.iokeccak0.2sha3/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11shabal/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11skein/Cargo.toml
crates.iothreefish0.6skein/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11sm3/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11streebog/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11tiger/Cargo.toml
crates.iodigest0.11whirlpool/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.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioascon—direct
crates.ioascon0.5.0direct
crates.iobash-f—direct
crates.iobash-f0.1.0direct
crates.iobelt-block—direct
crates.iobelt-block0.2.0direct
crates.iocfg-if—direct
crates.iocfg-if1.0.5direct
crates.iodigest—direct
crates.iodigest0.11.3direct
crates.iohex-literal—direct
crates.iohex-literal1.1.0direct
crates.iokeccak—direct
crates.iokeccak0.2.2direct
crates.iosha1—direct
crates.iosponge-cursor—direct
crates.iosponge-cursor0.1.0direct
crates.iothreefish—direct
crates.iothreefish0.6.0direct
crates.iowhirlpool—direct
crates.iozeroize—direct
crates.iozeroize1.9.1direct
crates.ioblobby0.4.0indirect
crates.ioblock-buffer0.12.1indirect
crates.iocmov0.5.4indirect
crates.ioconst-oid0.10.2indirect
crates.iocpufeatures—indirect
crates.iocpufeatures0.3.1indirect
crates.iocrypto-common0.2.2indirect
crates.ioctutils0.4.2indirect
crates.iohybrid-array0.4.15indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.190indirect
crates.ioppv-lite86—indirect
crates.ioppv-lite860.2.21indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.107indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.47indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.119indirect
crates.iotypenum1.20.1indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.27indirect
crates.iozerocopy0.8.62indirect
crates.iozerocopy-derive0.8.62indirect
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.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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