Microsoft SEAL
v4.3.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Microsoft SEAL's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Open-source homomorphic encryption library supporting BFV, BGV, and CKKS schemes for computing on encrypted integers and real numbers.
var prng = new Shake256PRNG();
var factory = new Shake256PRNGFactory(prng);
var context = Context::Create(SEAL_CIPHERSET, 0, factory.Create());
cmake -DSEAL_USE_GAUSSIAN_NOISE=ON ..
for (const auto& idx : seal::util::SeqIter<size_t>(N)) { /* use idx */ }
SEAL_ITERATE(iter, N) { /* use iter */ }
auto it = seal::util::reverse_iter(10); // Creates a reverse iterator starting from 9 down to 0
find_package(seal QUIET)
Encryptor encryptor(context, secret_key);
Summary
Microsoft SEAL is an open-source (MIT licensed) homomorphic encryption library that lets applications compute directly on encrypted data, supporting the BFV, BGV, and CKKS schemes for encrypted integers and real numbers. It is a library, written in standard C++ with bindings for other environments, that developers link into their own code rather than a standalone service. It is aimed at application developers and researchers building systems that must process sensitive data without ever decrypting it, such as privacy-preserving analytics or machine learning. It sits in the applied cryptography space, a category with few widely known alternatives outside academic and research libraries. Maintained by Microsoft's Cryptography Research Group since 2018, with 69 contributors and a release only 17 days ago, it is actively developed, and its latest version fixes untrusted-input handling and memory-safety issues, making the upgrade a security-relevant one rather than routine maintenance.
Open-source homomorphic encryption library supporting BFV, BGV, and CKKS schemes for computing on encrypted integers and real numbers.
How Microsoft SEAL helps
Can a service compute on sensitive numeric data without ever seeing it unencrypted?
encrypts integers or real numbers under BFV, BGV, or CKKS before they leave the caller's code, so the arithmetic performed downstream runs entirely on ciphertext and the result only decrypts correctly back at the source
Which arithmetic operations can a workload push into encrypted computation?
supports addition and multiplication directly on ciphertexts under the scheme chosen, so a design can be checked against BFV/BGV for exact integer results or CKKS for approximate real-number results before committing to one
Is this year's build against the library exposed to the security defect just fixed?
the CHANGES history and the 4.4 advisory identify the untrusted-input handling and memory-safety issues by version, so a linked copy can be checked against that version number to see if it predates the fix
Can a .NET or native C++ codebase share the same encrypted-computation logic?
ships as a C++ core with bindings, so the same ciphertexts and keys produced in one environment can be operated on from the other without re-implementing the scheme
Who else has touched the cryptographic code a project is trusting with sensitive data?
the maintained-since-2018 history and ongoing commit record from the Cryptography Research Group show how many contributors and how much active review has passed over the codebase being linked in
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 Microsoft SEAL, 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 Microsoft SEAL 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…
Commercials
pricing & packaging history · Microsoft vendor page16 readings of Microsoft's pricing page since Mar 2022, with 3 relaunches of its plan lineup — each one dated, compared with the reading before it, and explained for someone buying the tool.
Pricing and packaging history is included with Researcher and Business. See how every vendor we track sells, and how that has changed over time, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Plans by offering
Each offering on the pricing page links to its own page of plans, read at its latest capture.
Plan relaunches
Plans, prices and descriptions are quoted from the vendor's own pricing page as we read it on each date. A plan missing from a later reading is shown as no longer listed on the page — a statement about the page, not the product. Readings that failed to show any plans are left out rather than read as a change.
Website history
microsoft.com, every changeMicrosoft's home page and 40 more pages as they looked each month from October 2021 to October 2026: 1520 renders, 335 changes of tagline or palette. Step through them, play them, or put any two months side by side.
Website history is included with Researcher and Business.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →← → or h l a month · Shift a year · [ ] previous / next change · Space play · 1 2 3 page · T whole page · C compare · F full size
← → or h l the right month · Shift the left · S swap · W wipe · T whole page · Esc back
Rebranding timeline
Dates bound when a change appeared between captures. Possible rebrands are AI suggestions; a redesign alone does not establish a rebrand.
Releases
13 entries
No entries match these filters.
- April 20261
- January 20231
- March 20222
- May 20211
- April 20211
- December 20201
- July 20201
- May 20201
- April 20201
- January 20203
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in microsoft/SEAL, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 7 +3 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 2 +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 19 days first maintainer reply 19 days
- Open backlog 107 of 600 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 107
- Contributors / month 1
- Commits / month 1
- Stars 4,037
- 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.