Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-29 04:50 UTC

mullvad / nftnl-rs

Rust bindings and abstraction for libnftnl, low-level userspace access to the in-kernel nf_tables subsystem

RustApache-2.0★ 102 stars⑂ 38 forkssince Feb 2018View on GitHub ↗

mullvad/nftnl-rs holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (70/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (37/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Mullvad VPNOrganization
3,818 followers119 public repossince Feb 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ionftnl0.9.318,230150 days agofirewalliptablesnetfilternftnftablesapi-bindingsnetwork-programming
crates.ionftnl-sys0.6.418,20310244 days agofirewalliptablesnetfilternftnftablesexternal-ffi-bindingsnetwork-programmingno-std

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
16.7/18Commit volume — 72 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year72
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 15 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~249.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tagv0.9.3
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases249.4
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
32.5/60Stars — 102 stars
13.1/25Forks — 38 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks38
stars102
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
60.8/80Monthly downloads — 36,433 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesnftnl, nftnl-sys
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads1,530,438
monthly_downloads36,433
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
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.515
How it's scored
23.4/42Issue resolution — 56% of issues closed
26.9/30PR acceptance — 78/87 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs78
open_issues4
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.556
closed_unmerged_prs9
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 3,818 followers of mullvad
25/25Track record — 119 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,818
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginmullvad
public_repos119
account_age_days4,192

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 15 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesnftnl, nftnl-sys
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
2.2/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5Packaging — no data
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages17
unassessed_packages10
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 17 resolved dependencies against OSV. 10 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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
6.9/40Legible commit history — 13 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.13
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml, nftnl-sys/Cargo.toml, nftnl/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, nftnl-sys/Cargo.toml, nftnl/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
41.5/55Manageable file sizes — 13/53 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes63,166
source_files_sampled53
oversized_source_files13
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files

Key facts

102GitHub stars
12contributors
72commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
15releases
1bus factor
4open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index crates:nftnl@0.9.3; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 38 ⇿
0Stars
38Forks
11Releases

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.

01325383722020-012023-042026-06
Major 0Minor 7Patch 4

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-29 04:50 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 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
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iocfg-if1.0nftnl-sys/Cargo.toml
crates.iolibc0.2.166nftnl-sys/Cargo.toml
crates.iomnl-sys0.2.2nftnl-sys/Cargo.toml
crates.iobitflags2.6.0nftnl/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4nftnl/Cargo.toml
crates.ionftnl-sys0.6.2nftnl/Cargo.toml
crates.ionix0.31.2nftnl/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 27

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iobitflagsdirect
crates.iobitflags2.11.1direct
crates.iocfg-ifdirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4direct
crates.iolibcdirect
crates.iolibc0.2.186direct
crates.iologdirect
crates.iolog0.4.29direct
crates.iomnl-sysdirect
crates.iomnl-sys0.2.2direct
crates.ionftnl-sysdirect
crates.ionixdirect
crates.ionix0.31.2direct
crates.iocfg_aliases0.2.1indirect
crates.ioipnetworkindirect
crates.ioipnetwork0.20.0indirect
crates.iomnlindirect
crates.iomnl0.3.1indirect
crates.iopkg-configindirect
crates.iopkg-config0.3.33indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.45indirect
crates.ioserde1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.228indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.117indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 17 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 10 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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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