Clevis
v24 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Clevis's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Pluggable framework for automated decryption of data and automated unlocking of LUKSLUKSA disk-encryption standard built into the Linux kernel that stores encryption metadata in a header on the volume itself, letting cyber tools unlock encrypted drives portably across distributions and implementations. volumes using pins like Tang, TPMTPMA dedicated hardware chip, standardized by the Trusted Computing Group, that stores cryptographic keys and measurements in tamper-resistant silicon, giving cyber tools a root of trust that software alone cannot fake., and PKCS#11PKCS#11The standard programming interface software uses to ask an HSM, smart card or token to sign or decrypt with a key it holds. Supporting it lets a tool keep its keys in hardware..
clevis luks bind -d /dev/sda1 tang '{"url":"http://tang.example.com"}' -y
clevis luks regen -d /dev/sda1 tang '{"url":"http://new-tang.example.com"}'
clevis luks report -d /dev/sda1
Summary
Clevis is an open-source, free command-line framework for automated decryption, used to unlock encrypted data or LUKS disk volumes without a human entering a passphrase at boot. It works through pluggable pins — Tang for network-bound key servers, TPM1 and TPM2 for hardware-backed keys, and an experimental PKCS#11 pin for hardware tokens — with each encrypt or decrypt operation run as a simple shell command. It suits systems administrators and platform engineers who need disks or secrets to unlock automatically on trusted hardware or networks, rather than application developers managing config values. It sits in the disk-encryption and automated-unlock space alongside LUKS tooling, integrating at the initramfs level so volumes come up unattended on boot. First committed in 2015 and still active, with 60 contributors and 19 commits in the past year.
Pluggable framework for automated decryption of data and automated unlocking of LUKS volumes using pins like Tang, TPM, and PKCS#11.
How Clevis helps
Which LUKS volumes on this machine will unlock themselves at boot, and which ones still wait on a passphrase?
lists the bindings recorded on each device's metadata, showing which pin secured each one
Can this disk unlock itself if it's moved to another machine or network?
depends on the pin bound to it — a network-bound Tang binding needs the original server reachable, while a TPM-backed one is tied to that specific hardware, so the binding metadata tells you which condition must hold
Will this volume still come up unattended after a policy or key change on the server side?
re-requests the key advertisement at decrypt time and checks it against what was trusted at encrypt time, so a changed or untrusted advertisement blocks the automatic unlock
Is this encrypted data recoverable without someone typing a passphrase in?
decrypts the stored JWE object directly using whatever pin secured it, with no interactive input required if the bound condition (network server, TPM, token) is satisfied
Which hardware-backed option should secure a volume on a machine with an older TPM chip versus a newer one?
offers separate TPM1 and TPM2 pins, with the TPM2 pin auto-selecting a PCR algorithm bank the installed chip actually supports
Will this volume still unlock automatically once its root filesystem switches over from the initramfs?
depends on whether the needed pin binary and any HTTPS trust material were copied into the initrd, so a missing pin or certificate bundle there breaks the automatic unlock after boot continues past early userspace
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 Clevis, 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 Clevis 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
7 entries
No entries match these filters.
- October 20261
- May 20261
- March 20261
- September 20241
- February 20211
- October 20201
- August 20201
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in latchset/clevis, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 9 −3 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 3 +3 joined · −2 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 95% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 425 days first maintainer reply 11 hours
- Open backlog 148 of 323 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 148
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 1,258
- 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.