Pros of certbot

• Provides official Let's Encrypt certificates for public domains
• Supports automatic renewal of certificates
• Offers plugins for various web servers and operating systems

Cons of certbot

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires public domain and server access
• Not suitable for local development or internal networks

Code comparison

mkcert:

mkcert example.com "*.example.com" example.test localhost 127.0.0.1 ::1

certbot:

certbot certonly --standalone -d example.com -d www.example.com

mkcert focuses on simplicity for local development, generating trusted certificates with a single command. certbot is designed for production environments, requiring more configuration but providing official Let's Encrypt certificates.

mkcert is ideal for developers working on local projects or internal networks, while certbot is better suited for public-facing websites and servers requiring valid SSL/TLS certificates.

Both tools serve different purposes: mkcert simplifies local development with self-signed certificates, while certbot automates the process of obtaining and renewing official certificates for production environments.

Pros of certstrap

• More flexible and customizable, allowing for advanced certificate configurations
• Supports generating intermediate CAs and client certificates
• Provides a command-line interface for easier integration into scripts and automation

Cons of certstrap

• Less user-friendly for beginners compared to mkcert's simplicity
• Requires more manual configuration and understanding of PKI concepts
• Lacks automatic installation of root certificates in system/browser trust stores

Code Comparison

mkcert:

mkcert example.com "*.example.com" localhost 127.0.0.1 ::1

certstrap:

certstrap init --common-name "Example CA"
certstrap request-cert --domain example.com
certstrap sign example.com --CA "Example CA"

mkcert focuses on simplicity and ease of use, automatically handling trust store installation and supporting multiple domains in a single command. certstrap offers more granular control over the certificate generation process, requiring separate steps for initialization, certificate requests, and signing.

Both tools are valuable for local development and testing environments, with mkcert being more suitable for quick setups and certstrap offering more advanced features for complex PKI scenarios.

Pros of certificates

• More comprehensive PKI solution, offering a full-featured certificate authority
• Supports various protocols and integrations (e.g., ACME, SCEP, EST)
• Provides advanced features like certificate revocation and renewal

Cons of certificates

• More complex setup and configuration compared to mkcert
• Steeper learning curve for users new to PKI concepts
• Requires more system resources due to its broader feature set

Code comparison

mkcert:

cert, err := mkcert.NewCertificate([]string{"example.com"}, now, now.Add(365*24*time.Hour))
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

certificates:

cert, err := ca.Sign(&x509.Certificate{
    Subject:     pkix.Name{CommonName: "example.com"},
    NotBefore:   time.Now(),
    NotAfter:    time.Now().Add(365 * 24 * time.Hour),
    KeyUsage:    x509.KeyUsageDigitalSignature,
    ExtKeyUsage: []x509.ExtKeyUsage{x509.ExtKeyUsageServerAuth},
})

Both projects aim to simplify certificate management, but certificates offers a more robust solution for enterprise-level PKI needs, while mkcert focuses on simplicity for local development environments.

Pros of cfssl

• More comprehensive PKI toolkit with broader functionality
• Supports advanced features like OCSP and CRL generation
• Designed for enterprise-level certificate management

Cons of cfssl

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup
• Requires more system resources and dependencies
• Less user-friendly for simple, local development use cases

Code Comparison

mkcert:

mkcert -install
mkcert example.com "*.example.com" localhost 127.0.0.1 ::1

cfssl:

cfssl gencert -initca ca-csr.json | cfssljson -bare ca
cfssl gencert -ca=ca.pem -ca-key=ca-key.pem -config=config.json \
    -profile=server server.json | cfssljson -bare server

Summary

mkcert is a lightweight, user-friendly tool for generating locally-trusted development certificates. It's ideal for individual developers and small teams working on local projects.

cfssl is a more robust, feature-rich PKI toolkit suitable for enterprise-level certificate management. It offers advanced functionality but requires more setup and expertise to use effectively.

Choose mkcert for quick, easy local development certificates, and cfssl for comprehensive PKI management in larger, more complex environments.

Pros of easy-rsa

• More comprehensive PKI management solution
• Supports a wider range of certificate types and use cases
• Better suited for complex enterprise environments

Cons of easy-rsa

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup
• Requires more manual configuration and management
• Less user-friendly for simple local development scenarios

Code Comparison

mkcert:

mkcert example.com "*.example.com" localhost 127.0.0.1 ::1

easy-rsa:

./easyrsa init-pki
./easyrsa build-ca
./easyrsa gen-req server nopass
./easyrsa sign-req server server

Key Differences

mkcert is designed for simplicity and ease of use, particularly for local development environments. It automatically handles many aspects of certificate creation and installation, making it ideal for developers who need quick, locally-trusted certificates.

easy-rsa, on the other hand, is a more powerful and flexible tool that provides a complete PKI management solution. It's better suited for production environments, VPN setups, and scenarios where more control over the certificate creation process is required.

While mkcert focuses on creating development certificates with minimal configuration, easy-rsa offers a full suite of PKI management tools, including the ability to create and manage Certificate Authorities, generate various types of certificates, and handle certificate revocation.

Pros of boulder

• Provides publicly trusted certificates for production use
• Supports automated certificate issuance and renewal
• Implements the ACME protocol for standardized certificate management

Cons of boulder

• Complex setup and infrastructure requirements
• Primarily designed for running a Certificate Authority, not local development
• Steeper learning curve for individual developers

Code comparison

mkcert:

func installPlatformDependencies() {
    switch runtime.GOOS {
    case "darwin":
        installDarwin()
    case "linux":
        installLinux()
    case "windows":
        installWindows()
    }
}

boulder:

func (ra *RegistrationAuthorityImpl) NewAuthorization(ctx context.Context, authz core.Authorization, regID int64) (core.Authorization, error) {
    if !authz.IsValid() {
        return core.Authorization{}, berrors.InternalServerError("invalid authorization")
    }
    // ... (additional implementation)
}

Summary

mkcert is a lightweight tool for creating locally-trusted development certificates, while boulder is a comprehensive implementation of a Certificate Authority. mkcert is easier to use for local development, but boulder provides production-ready, publicly trusted certificates. The code snippets highlight the difference in complexity, with mkcert focusing on cross-platform support for local installations, and boulder implementing more complex certificate authority functions.