Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 12:30 UTC

aws / aws-lc-rs

aws-lc-rs is a cryptographic library using AWS-LC for its cryptographic operations. The library strives to be API-compatible with the popular Rust library named ring.

RustCustom license★ 642 stars⑂ 140 forkssince Nov 2022View on GitHub ↗

aws/aws-lc-rs holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (72/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

94
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 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Amazon Web ServicesOrganization · verified domain
16,557 followers552 public repossince Aug 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioaws-lc-rs1.18.024,858,1925519 days agocryptocryptographysecurity
crates.ioaws-lc-sys0.44.024,987,8477019 days ago
crates.ioaws-lc-fips-sys0.14.11,537,4925319 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
30.5/36Commit cadence44/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume204 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year204
human_commit_share0.87
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year44

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases53 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 19 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~22.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count53
latest_release_tagv1.18.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release19
mean_days_between_releases22.8
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?

82Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.5/60Stars642 stars
17.9/25Forks140 forks
5/15Watchers9 watchers
Inputs used
forks140
stars642
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads51,383,531 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesaws-lc-rs, aws-lc-sys, aws-lc-fips-sys
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads431,065,204
monthly_downloads51,383,531
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?

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 74% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth53 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled53
top_contributor_share0.737
How it's scored
37.7/42Issue resolution90% of issues closed
24.5/30PR acceptance763/935 decided PRs merged
8.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance2/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs763
open_issues28
closed_issues243
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d16
prs_decided_30d18
issue_closed_ratio0.897
closed_unmerged_prs172
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach16,557 followers of aws
25/25Track record552 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers16,557
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginaws
public_repos552
account_age_days5,112

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable3 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 19 days ago
20/20Version history70 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesaws-lc-rs, aws-lc-sys, aws-lc-fips-sys
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish19

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows16 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rustfmt.toml, builder-test/Cargo.toml ([lints])
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_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

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

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
7.5/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is fully enabled on development and all 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
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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_aggregate7.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

73Good · 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 history82 of 87 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.943
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile, aws-lc-fips-sys/Makefile, aws-lc-rs-testing/Makefile, aws-lc-rs/Makefile, aws-lc-sys/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rustfmt.toml, builder-test/Cargo.toml ([lints])
11/11Static type checkingRust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance13 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
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile, aws-lc-fips-sys/Makefile, aws-lc-rs-testing/Makefile, aws-lc-rs/Makefile, aws-lc-sys/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, aws-lc-fips-sys/Cargo.toml, aws-lc-rs-testing/Cargo.toml, aws-lc-rs/Cargo.toml, aws-lc-sys/Cargo.toml, builder-test/Cargo.toml, links-testing/Cargo.toml, tests/binary-size/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.13
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
46/55Manageable file sizes34/207 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes963,879
source_files_sampled207
oversized_source_files34
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

642GitHub stars
53contributors
204commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
53releases
1bus factor
28open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'builder-test' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'links-testing' from its registry
  • Could not fetch crates package 'aws-lc-rs-testing' from its registry
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 140 ⇿
0Stars
140Forks
53Releases

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.

025507510012515013962023-042024-122026-08
Major 1Minor 18Patch 33

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10
7.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 12:29 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
10Branch-Protectionbranch protection is fully enabled on development and all 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
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 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 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iountrustedaws-lc-rs/Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-lc-sys0.44.0aws-lc-rs/Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-lc-fips-sys0.14.0aws-lc-rs/Cargo.toml
crates.iozeroizeaws-lc-rs/Cargo.toml
crates.ioccbuilder-test/Cargo.toml
crates.iocmakebuilder-test/Cargo.toml
crates.ioduncebuilder-test/Cargo.toml
crates.iofs_extrabuilder-test/Cargo.toml
crates.iobindgenbuilder-test/Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-lc-rslinks-testing/Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-lc-syslinks-testing/Cargo.toml
crates.ioaws-lc-fips-syslinks-testing/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 3

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioaws-lc-fips-sysdirect
crates.ioaws-lc-rsdirect
crates.ioaws-lc-sysdirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 statisticscrates.io.