ssdeep
release-1.1 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on ssdeep's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
ssdeep is a fuzzy hashing tool that computes context-triggered piecewise hashes to identify similar or partially matching files, useful in malware analysis.
ssdeep -d .
ssdeep -dp /path/to/directory
ssdeep -t 30 target_file.bin
ssdeep -c file1.txt file2.txt
fuzzy_hash_filename('/path/to/file.txt')
result = api.fuzzy_set_total_input_length(hash_set)
Summary
ssdeep is an open-source, free command-line tool that computes context-triggered piecewise hashes, letting an analyst compare files for partial or fuzzy similarity rather than exact matches. Run against a batch of files, it outputs a CSV-style list of hash entries with a block size per file, and it will warn when a file is too small to produce a meaningful comparison, which matters for anyone tuning results across mixed file sizes. It fits malware analysis and forensics work, where analysts triage samples or configuration files for near-duplicates rather than relying on cryptographic hashes that break on the smallest change. It sits in the fuzzy-hashing corner of file-analysis tooling, a category rather than a single named rival. First committed in 2008, it still saw 39 commits in the past year from 11 contributors, so it remains maintained rather than abandoned.
ssdeep is a fuzzy hashing tool that computes context-triggered piecewise hashes to identify similar or partially matching files, useful in malware analysis.
How ssdeep helps
Which of these malware samples are variants of something I've already seen?
computes a piecewise hash for each file and compares them for partial similarity, flagging near-matches even when attackers changed sections of the code rather than relying on a cryptographic hash that would show no relationship at all
Did this configuration file get quietly altered from the baseline I have on file?
hashes the current file and the reference copy and reports how closely the piecewise blocks line up, catching partial edits that an exact hash would only report as completely different
Which files in this batch are near-duplicates of each other?
runs the hashing across every file in a directory and outputs a CSV list of hash entries with block sizes, so entries with matching or close hashes can be picked out as related
Can I trust a similarity score between two very small files in this batch?
warns when a file is too small to produce a meaningful comparison, signaling that any close or distant score for that entry may not reflect real similarity
Are my code and config files across this project structurally similar to each other?
produces one hash entry per file with its block size, letting the reader line up entries such as settings and deployment manifests to see which pairs are closest in structure
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 ssdeep, 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 ssdeep 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
13 entries
No entries match these filters.
- June 20179
- February 20121
- July 20101
- February 20082
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in ssdeep-project/ssdeep, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 2 +1 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +1 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed not measured of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 5.7 years issues closed, last 12 months
- Open backlog 11 of 31 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 11
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 799
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
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.