Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 15:17 UTC

nolze / msoffcrypto-tool

Python tool and library for decrypting and encrypting MS Office files using passwords or other keys

PythonMIT★ 622 stars⑂ 91 forkssince Sep 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined
#ole#ooxml#docx#doc#encryption#decryption#command-line#ms-offcrypto#xlsx#xls#ppt#pptx

nolze/msoffcrypto-tool holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on Vitality (30/100). It was last updated 227 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
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.

56
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

nolzePersonal account
71 followers37 public repossince May 2010

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPImsoffcrypto-tool6.0.014,513,92335227 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

30At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

11Critical
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 227 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume — 5 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year5
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push227
active_weeks_last_year1

Release discipline

58Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 40 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 227 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~116.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count40
latest_release_tagv6.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release227
mean_days_between_releases116.6
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?

70Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

69Good
How it's scored
45.3/60Stars — 622 stars
16.3/25Forks — 91 forks
7.4/15Watchers — 22 watchers
Inputs used
forks91
stars622
watchers22
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, readthedocs.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 14,513,923 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmsoffcrypto-tool
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads14,513,923
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

35Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 91% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.906

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good
How it's scored
30.1/42Issue resolution — 72% of issues closed
27.2/30PR acceptance — 39/43 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs39
open_issues15
closed_issues38
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.717
closed_unmerged_prs4
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

59Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.4/25Owner reach — 71 followers of nolze
23.5/25Track record — 37 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers71
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginnolze
public_repos37
account_age_days5,933
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 227 days ago
20/20Version history — 35 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmsoffcrypto-tool
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish227

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://msoffcrypto-tool.readthedocs.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 12 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsole, ooxml, docx, doc, encryption, decryption, command-line, ms-offcrypto, xlsx, xls, ppt, pptx
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://msoffcrypto-tool.readthedocs.io/
docs_sitehttps://msoffcrypto-tool.readthedocs.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

35Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

19Critical
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — 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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 21 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate1.9
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
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_packages4
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 pypi:msoffcrypto-tool@6.0.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 4 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.workato.com/llms.txt)
8.5/40Legible commit history — 16 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.workato.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.16
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.black])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/24 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes28,358
source_files_sampled24
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

622GitHub stars
11contributors
5commits, last 12 months
227days since last push
40releases
1bus factor
15open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 91 ⇿
0Stars
91Forks
39Releases

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.

0204060801008542017-052021-122026-08
Major 3Minor 16Patch 19

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.9 / 10
1.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 15:17 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
0Vulnerabilities21 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIcryptography>=39.0pyproject.toml
PyPIolefile>=0.46pyproject.toml
All dependencies 54

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcryptography46.0.3direct
PyPIolefile—direct
PyPIolefile0.47direct
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster1.0.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.12.1indirect
PyPIbabel2.17.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.14.3indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.1.4indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.3.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfuro2025.12.19indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.5.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImyst-parser4.0.1indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser2.23indirect
PyPIpycrypto—indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer3.0.1indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.8.1indirect
PyPIsphinx8.1.3indirect
PyPIsphinx-autobuild2024.10.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-basic-ng1.0.0b2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-autoprogram0.1.9indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.1.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp2.0.0indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml2.0.0indirect
PyPIstarlette0.51.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIuvicorn0.40.0indirect
PyPIwatchfiles1.1.1indirect
PyPIwebsockets16.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:msoffcrypto-tool@6.0.0 pulls in 4 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 nolze/msoffcrypto-tool. Read them side by side →

87yfedoseev/office_oxideThe fastest Office document library for Python, Rust, Go, JS/TS, C# and WASM. DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, DOC, XLS, PPT. Up to 100× faster than python-docx/openpyxl/python-pptx. 100% pass rate on valid Office files. MIT/Apache-2.0.Excellent98dream-num/univerUniver is a full-stack framework for creating and editing spreadsheets / word processor / presentation on both web and server.Exceptional98docling-project/doclingGet your documents ready for gen AIExceptional92microsoft/markitdownPython tool for converting files and office documents to Markdown.Excellent89opendatalab/MinerUTransforms complex documents like PDFs and Office docs into LLM-ready markdown/JSON for your Agentic workflows.Excellent81xuri/excelize-pyExcelize is a Python port of Go Excelize library that allow you to write to and read from XLAM / XLSM / XLSX / XLTM / XLTX files.Excellent

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 — PyPI.