Public recordExceptional
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 16:21 UTC
wolfSSL / wolfssl
The wolfSSL library is a small, fast, portable implementation of TLS/SSL for embedded devices to the cloud. wolfSSL supports up to TLS 1.3 and DTLS 1.3! Update to wolfSSL 5.9.1 for the latest CVE fixes.
wolfSSL/wolfssl holds a health index of 97 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Security (68/100). It was last updated today. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.
97
overall / 100Software 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.
97
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 85 is calibrated to 97 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
wolfSSLOrganization · verified domain
551 followers66 public repossince Nov 2013
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
96
Development activity
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 0 days ago |
| 36/36 | Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 5,918 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 5,918 |
| human_commit_share | 1 |
| days_since_last_push | 0 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 52 |
Release discipline
91Excellent
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 48 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 57 days ago |
| 19.8/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~91.8 days |
| 8/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 48 |
| latest_release_tag | v5.9.2-stable |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 57 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 91.8 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
85
Popularity & adoption
92Excellent
How it's scored
| 56.2/60 | Stars — 2,914 stars |
| 25/25 | Forks — 1,022 forks |
| 11.2/15 | Watchers — 105 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 1,022 |
| stars | 2,914 |
| watchers | 105 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
77Good
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (GPL-3.0) |
| 18/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 0/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 6.3/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | 0 |
| has_contributing | yes |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | yes |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
88
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
85Excellent
How it's scored
| 43.2/54 | Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 18.5/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 18% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 99 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 4 |
| contributors_sampled | 99 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.176 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
83Excellent
How it's scored
| 40.6/42 | Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed |
| 27.1/30 | PR acceptance — 8,857/9,789 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| 15/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 8,857 |
| open_issues | 44 |
| closed_issues | 1,234 |
| prs_merged_7d | 37 |
| prs_decided_7d | 44 |
| prs_merged_30d | 53 |
| prs_decided_30d | 60 |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.966 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 932 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 1 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 1 |
Ownership & stewardship
95Exceptional
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 20/20 | Verified domain |
| 19.7/25 | Owner reach — 551 followers of wolfSSL |
| 25/25 | Track record — 66 public repos, account ~12 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 551 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | yes |
| owner_login | wolfSSL |
| public_repos | 66 |
| account_age_days | 4,669 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
84
Engineering practices
74Good
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 113 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 6.4/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | yes |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://www.wolfssl.com |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 20 topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | ssl, tls, cryptography, security, openssl, tls13, dtls, https, fips, cryptography-api, embedded-systems, encryption, iot, trusted-execution-environment, openssl-alternative, c-library, wolfssl, cipher-suites, openssl-api, sniffer |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | https://www.wolfssl.com |
| docs_site | https://www.wolfssl.com |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | yes |
| has_description | yes |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
68
Security posture
60Moderate
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 4.5/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations |
| 0/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected |
| 5/5 | Fuzzing — project is fuzzed |
| 2.5/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 30 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 |
| 6/7.5 | Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
| 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 | 18 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 0 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 6 |
Dependency advisories
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 35/35 | Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| 0/25 | Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| 0/40 | No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date |
Inputs used
| source | osv |
| advisories | 0 |
| affected_packages | 0 |
| assessed_packages | 52 |
| unassessed_packages | 0 |
| affected_by_severity | none |
| direct_affected_packages | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 52 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.
78
Agent context & guidance
82Excellent
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 37.3/40 | Legible commit history — 70 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 0.7 |
| agent_instruction_files | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | 14,577 |
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
61Moderate
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — .github/workflows/hostap-files/Makefile, IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF/examples/template/Makefile, IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF/examples/wolfssl_benchmark/Makefile, IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF/examples/wolfssl_client/Makefile, IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF/examples/wolfssl_server/Makefile, IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF/examples/wolfssl_test/Makefile, IDE/GCC-ARM/Makefile, IDE/HEXAGON/DSP/Makefile, IDE/HEXAGON/Makefile, IDE/IAR-MSP430/Makefile, IDE/INTIME-RTOS/Makefile, IDE/M68K/Makefile, IDE/M68K/benchmark/Makefile, IDE/M68K/testwolfcrypt/Makefile, IDE/MPLABX16/wolfcrypt_test.X/Makefile, IDE/MPLABX16/wolfssl.X/Makefile, IDE/MQX/Makefile, IDE/QNX/CAAM-DRIVER/Makefile, IDE/QNX/example-client/Makefile, IDE/QNX/example-cmac/Makefile, IDE/QNX/example-server/Makefile, IDE/QNX/testwolfcrypt/Makefile, IDE/QNX/wolfssl/Makefile, IDE/RISCV/SIFIVE-HIFIVE1/Makefile, IDE/iotsafe-raspberrypi/Makefile, IDE/iotsafe/Makefile, IDE/m33mu-falcon-verify/Makefile, IDE/qemu-falcon-neon/Makefile, RTOS/nuttx/wolfssl/Makefile, bsdkm/Makefile, examples/async/Makefile, linuxkm/Makefile, mcapi/wolfcrypt_mcapi.X/Makefile, mcapi/wolfcrypt_test.X/Makefile, mcapi/wolfssl.X/Makefile, mcapi/zlib.X/Makefile, mplabx/wolfcrypt_benchmark.X/Makefile, mplabx/wolfcrypt_test.X/Makefile, mplabx/wolfssl.X/Makefile, tests/emnet/Makefile, tests/swdev/Makefile, wrapper/rust/Makefile, wrapper/rust/wolfssl-wolfcrypt/Makefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — C (statically typed) |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed |
| 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 | yes |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | .github/workflows/hostap-files/Makefile, IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF/examples/template/Makefile, IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF/examples/wolfssl_benchmark/Makefile, IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF/examples/wolfssl_client/Makefile, IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF/examples/wolfssl_server/Makefile, IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF/examples/wolfssl_test/Makefile, IDE/GCC-ARM/Makefile, IDE/HEXAGON/DSP/Makefile, IDE/HEXAGON/Makefile, IDE/IAR-MSP430/Makefile, IDE/INTIME-RTOS/Makefile, IDE/M68K/Makefile, IDE/M68K/benchmark/Makefile, IDE/M68K/testwolfcrypt/Makefile, IDE/MPLABX16/wolfcrypt_test.X/Makefile, IDE/MPLABX16/wolfssl.X/Makefile, IDE/MQX/Makefile, IDE/QNX/CAAM-DRIVER/Makefile, IDE/QNX/example-client/Makefile, IDE/QNX/example-cmac/Makefile, IDE/QNX/example-server/Makefile, IDE/QNX/testwolfcrypt/Makefile, IDE/QNX/wolfssl/Makefile, IDE/RISCV/SIFIVE-HIFIVE1/Makefile, IDE/iotsafe-raspberrypi/Makefile, IDE/iotsafe/Makefile, IDE/m33mu-falcon-verify/Makefile, IDE/qemu-falcon-neon/Makefile, RTOS/nuttx/wolfssl/Makefile, bsdkm/Makefile, examples/async/Makefile, linuxkm/Makefile, mcapi/wolfcrypt_mcapi.X/Makefile, mcapi/wolfcrypt_test.X/Makefile, mcapi/wolfssl.X/Makefile, mcapi/zlib.X/Makefile, mplabx/wolfcrypt_benchmark.X/Makefile, mplabx/wolfcrypt_test.X/Makefile, mplabx/wolfssl.X/Makefile, tests/emnet/Makefile, tests/swdev/Makefile, wrapper/rust/Makefile, wrapper/rust/wolfssl-wolfcrypt/Makefile |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | wrapper/CSharp/wolfCrypt-Test/wolfCrypt-Test.csproj, wrapper/CSharp/wolfSSL-DTLS-PSK-Server/wolfSSL-DTLS-PSK-Server.csproj, wrapper/CSharp/wolfSSL-DTLS-Server/wolfSSL-DTLS-Server.csproj, wrapper/CSharp/wolfSSL-Example-IOCallbacks/wolfSSL-Example-IOCallbacks.csproj, wrapper/CSharp/wolfSSL-TLS-Client/wolfSSL-TLS-Client.csproj, wrapper/CSharp/wolfSSL-TLS-PSK-Client/wolfSSL-TLS-PSK-Client.csproj, wrapper/CSharp/wolfSSL-TLS-PSK-Server/wolfSSL-TLS-PSK-Server.csproj, wrapper/CSharp/wolfSSL-TLS-Server/wolfSSL-TLS-Server.csproj, wrapper/CSharp/wolfSSL-TLS-ServerThreaded/wolfSSL-TLS-ServerThreaded.csproj, wrapper/CSharp/wolfSSL_CSharp/wolfSSL_CSharp.csproj, wrapper/rust/wolfssl-wolfcrypt/Cargo.toml |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Code legibility for models
92Excellent
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — C (statically typed) |
| 47.2/55 | Manageable file sizes — 224/1,581 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | C |
| largest_source_bytes | 5,912,811 |
| source_files_sampled | 1,581 |
| oversized_source_files | 224 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 0/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 0/20 | MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — examples, samples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | examples, samples |
| has_mcp_signal | no |
| 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
2,914GitHub stars
99contributors
5,918commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
48releases
4bus factor
44open issues
—package ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 24 authors (cap 12)
More detail
Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,022 ⇿
0Stars
1,022Forks
48Releases
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.
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0
Each point covers 11 days.
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 6 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 10 | Code-Review | all changesets reviewed |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 14 contributing companies or organizations |
| 0 | Dangerous-Workflow | dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 10 | Fuzzing | project is fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 10 | Maintained | 30 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 |
| 8 | Signed-Releases | 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 10 | Vulnerabilities | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
All dependencies 52
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 52 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates.io | aead | 0.5.2 | indirect |
| crates.io | aho-corasick | 1.1.4 | indirect |
| crates.io | autocfg | 1.5.1 | indirect |
| crates.io | base64ct | 1.8.3 | indirect |
| crates.io | bindgen | 0.72.1 | indirect |
| crates.io | bitflags | 2.13.0 | indirect |
| crates.io | blobby | 0.3.1 | indirect |
| crates.io | blobby | 0.4.0 | indirect |
| crates.io | block-buffer | 0.12.1 | indirect |
| crates.io | cexpr | 0.6.0 | indirect |
| crates.io | cfg-if | 1.0.4 | indirect |
| crates.io | cipher | 0.5.2 | indirect |
| crates.io | clang-sys | 1.8.1 | indirect |
| crates.io | cmov | 0.5.4 | indirect |
| crates.io | crypto-common | 0.1.7 | indirect |
| crates.io | crypto-common | 0.2.2 | indirect |
| crates.io | ctutils | 0.4.2 | indirect |
| crates.io | digest | 0.11.3 | indirect |
| crates.io | either | 1.16.0 | indirect |
| crates.io | generic-array | 0.14.7 | indirect |
| crates.io | glob | 0.3.3 | indirect |
| crates.io | hybrid-array | 0.4.13 | indirect |
| crates.io | inout | 0.2.2 | indirect |
| crates.io | itertools | 0.13.0 | indirect |
| crates.io | kem | 0.3.0 | indirect |
| crates.io | libc | 0.2.186 | indirect |
| crates.io | libloading | 0.8.9 | indirect |
| crates.io | log | 0.4.33 | indirect |
| crates.io | memchr | 2.8.2 | indirect |
| crates.io | minimal-lexical | 0.2.1 | indirect |
| crates.io | nom | 7.1.3 | indirect |
| crates.io | num-traits | 0.2.19 | indirect |
| crates.io | password-hash | 0.6.1 | indirect |
| crates.io | phc | 0.6.1 | indirect |
| crates.io | prettyplease | 0.2.37 | indirect |
| crates.io | proc-macro2 | 1.0.106 | indirect |
| crates.io | quote | 1.0.46 | indirect |
| crates.io | rand_core | 0.10.1 | indirect |
| crates.io | rand_core | 0.6.4 | indirect |
| crates.io | regex | 1.12.4 | indirect |
| crates.io | regex-automata | 0.4.14 | indirect |
| crates.io | regex-syntax | 0.8.11 | indirect |
| crates.io | rustc-hash | 2.1.3 | indirect |
| crates.io | shlex | 1.3.0 | indirect |
| crates.io | signature | 2.2.0 | 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 | version_check | 0.9.5 | indirect |
| crates.io | windows-link | 0.2.1 | indirect |
| crates.io | zeroize | 1.9.0 | indirect |
| crates.io | zeroize_derive | 1.5.0 | indirect |
Dependency advisories 0
This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 52 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.
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.