bruteforce-luks
1.1 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on bruteforce-luks's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
bruteforce-luks tries to find the password of a LUKS encrypted volume via exhaustive charset enumeration or dictionary file.
Summary
bruteforce-luks is an open-source command-line tool that tries passwords against a LUKS-encrypted volume until one unlocks it, whether generated from a character set and length range or read from a dictionary file. It runs as a single-threaded process by default, though the number of threads is configurable, and long sessions can be checkpointed and resumed with a state file, with progress reported periodically or on demand via a USR1 signal. This puts it in the password-cracking category rather than general recovery software, aimed at penetration testers and forensic examiners auditing disk-encryption passphrase strength rather than end users who forgot a password. First committed in 2014 and still on GitHub with 280+ stars, the project has had no commits in the past year and its last release was over two and a half years ago, so treat it as stable but not actively maintained.
bruteforce-luks tries to find the password of a LUKS encrypted volume via exhaustive charset enumeration or dictionary file.
How bruteforce-luks helps
Can a weak passphrase on this encrypted volume be found by guessing alone?
tries passwords generated from a character set and length range, or read line by line from a dictionary file, against the volume's key slots until one opens it, giving a direct yes/no on guessability
How long will testing every combination up to a certain length actually take?
reports progress and cracking speed periodically or on demand via a USR1 signal, so the observed rate can be used to estimate time to exhaustion for the chosen character set and length range
Can a multi-day cracking run survive a reboot or a killed process without starting over?
checkpoints its position to a state file roughly every minute and reloads it at startup, resuming from where it left off instead of restarting the search
Will throwing more CPU cores at the problem speed up the search?
runs single-threaded by default but accepts a configurable thread count, letting the same search be split across cores to raise the tested-passwords-per-second rate
Does this technique work against the newer LUKS2 header format or only the original one?
supports both LUKS1 and LUKS2 volumes, so the same guessing approach applies regardless of which on-disk format the target uses
Which slot and passphrase actually unlocked the drive?
stops as soon as a working password is found and prints the last tried password along with progress info, identifying the successful guess
Languages
Command line
No command matches.
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for bruteforce-luks, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail bruteforce-luks puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
1 entry
No entries match these filters.
- October 20151
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in glv2/bruteforce-luks, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 0 ±0 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 0 +0 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 0 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close not measured issues closed, last 12 months
- Open backlog 17 of 39 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 17
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 283
- other 100%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.