hashcat-utils
v1.10 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on hashcat-utils's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Small utilities that are useful in advanced password cracking - hashcat/hashcat-utils
cat wordlist1.txt | combinatorX - wordlist2.txt ./cap2hccapx input.cap output.hccx ./ct3_to_ntlm input.ct3 > output.ntlm make release
Summary
hashcat-utils is an open-source, MIT-licensed set of small command-line utilities for password cracking, distributed as standalone binaries you build with gcc or clang or fetch pre-built for Linux and Windows. Each utility does one narrow job, such as generating n-grams from a wordlist, converting NTLMv1NTLMv1A Windows authentication protocol that proves knowledge of a password through a challenge and response. Captured authentication exchanges can be abused in relay attacks when protections are absent. hashes into formats hashcat accepts, or combining wordlists, and because they all read STDIN and write STDOUT they chain together into pipelines rather than working as a single program. This suits people already running hashcat who need to prepare or transform candidate passwords and hash formats, not newcomers looking for an all-in-one cracker. Started in 2015 and still maintained by 23 contributors, with 24 commits in the past year and a release 342 days ago, the project is active though updates arrive slowly.
Small utilities that are useful in advanced password cracking - hashcat/hashcat-utils
How hashcat-utils helps
Which patterns in my cracked passwords could turn into a smarter wordlist for the next run?
breaks a wordlist or potfile down into overlapping character sequences so the frequent fragments in real passwords can be reused as candidates
Can I turn two separate wordlists into every plausible combined password without writing them out as one giant file first?
streams one list in from standard input and pairs it against a second file, emitting the concatenations directly so nothing touches disk as an intermediate
Is a captured NTLMv1 or MSCHAPv2 exchange actually usable in a cracking run?
converts the raw challenge/response line into the DES keys and hash formats hashcat accepts, so a Responder capture becomes crackable candidates instead of a dead end
Did a wordlist-generation change quietly shrink the candidates I can generate?
tracks the maximum password length combinators will build up to, so raising or lowering that ceiling shows up as fewer or more candidates coming out the far end
What did a past cracking session already recover, and can I reuse it instead of starting over?
reads a potfile and exports the plaintext-hash pairs it contains, turning session history into a list of already-known answers
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 hashcat-utils, 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 hashcat-utils 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
6 entries
No entries match these filters.
- September 20251
- August 20181
- May 20171
- February 20173
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in hashcat/hashcat-utils, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 3 −2 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +1 joined · −1 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close < 1 day first maintainer reply 14 hours
- Open backlog 17 of 60 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 17
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 1,621
- 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.