Pros of Forge

• More comprehensive cryptographic library with a wider range of algorithms and utilities
• Better support for modern web standards and protocols (e.g., TLS, X.509)
• Active development and maintenance with regular updates

Cons of Forge

• Larger file size and potentially higher overhead
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• May be overkill for simple cryptographic needs

Code Comparison

SJCL (AES encryption):

var ciphertext = sjcl.encrypt("password", "message");
var plaintext = sjcl.decrypt("password", ciphertext);

Forge (AES encryption):

var cipher = forge.cipher.createCipher('AES-CBC', key);
cipher.start({iv: iv});
cipher.update(forge.util.createBuffer(message));
cipher.finish();
var ciphertext = cipher.output.getBytes();

Both libraries offer cryptographic functionality, but Forge provides a more extensive set of tools and algorithms. SJCL is more focused on simplicity and ease of use, making it suitable for basic cryptographic operations. Forge, on the other hand, offers a broader range of features and better support for complex cryptographic scenarios, but may require more setup and configuration.

Pros of crypto-js

• Broader range of cryptographic functions and algorithms
• More actively maintained with recent updates
• Larger community and more widespread adoption

Cons of crypto-js

• Larger file size, which may impact load times
• Less focus on specific security features compared to SJCL
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

SJCL (AES encryption):

var ciphertext = sjcl.encrypt("password", "message");
var plaintext = sjcl.decrypt("password", ciphertext);

crypto-js (AES encryption):

var ciphertext = CryptoJS.AES.encrypt("message", "password").toString();
var bytes = CryptoJS.AES.decrypt(ciphertext, "password");
var plaintext = bytes.toString(CryptoJS.enc.Utf8);

Both libraries offer AES encryption, but SJCL provides a more straightforward API with built-in key derivation. crypto-js requires additional steps for decryption and encoding, but offers more flexibility in terms of encryption modes and key formats.

SJCL focuses on providing a secure, easy-to-use cryptographic library with a smaller set of well-implemented algorithms. crypto-js, on the other hand, offers a wider range of cryptographic functions, making it suitable for more diverse applications but potentially at the cost of a larger codebase and more complex usage.

Pros of jsencrypt

• Focused specifically on RSA encryption and decryption
• Simpler API for basic RSA operations
• Smaller library size, suitable for lightweight applications

Cons of jsencrypt

• Limited to RSA algorithms only
• Less actively maintained compared to sjcl
• Fewer cryptographic features and options

Code Comparison

sjcl:

var encrypted = sjcl.encrypt("password", "message");
var decrypted = sjcl.decrypt("password", encrypted);

jsencrypt:

var encrypt = new JSEncrypt();
encrypt.setPublicKey("-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----...");
var encrypted = encrypt.encrypt("message");

Additional Notes

sjcl offers a broader range of cryptographic functions, including AES, SHA, and HMAC, making it more versatile for various security needs. It also provides more advanced features like key derivation and random number generation.

jsencrypt, on the other hand, is more specialized and easier to use for simple RSA operations. It's a good choice for projects that only require RSA encryption and decryption without the need for additional cryptographic functions.

Both libraries have their merits, and the choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as the range of cryptographic operations needed and the desired balance between simplicity and functionality.

Pros of aes-js

• Lightweight and focused solely on AES implementation
• Easy to use with a straightforward API
• Supports various modes of operation (ECB, CBC, CFB, OFB, CTR)

Cons of aes-js

• Limited to AES encryption only, lacking additional cryptographic features
• Less actively maintained compared to sjcl
• Fewer community contributions and updates

Code Comparison

aes-js

var aesjs = require('aes-js');
var key = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16];
var aesCtr = new aesjs.ModeOfOperation.ctr(key);
var encryptedBytes = aesCtr.encrypt(textBytes);

sjcl

var sjcl = require('sjcl');
var key = sjcl.codec.utf8String.toBits("secret key");
var plaintext = "Hello, World!";
var ciphertext = sjcl.encrypt(key, plaintext);

Summary

aes-js is a lightweight library focused on AES encryption, offering simplicity and ease of use. However, it lacks the broader cryptographic features and active community support found in sjcl. sjcl provides a more comprehensive set of cryptographic tools and is better maintained, making it suitable for more complex security requirements. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the desired level of cryptographic functionality.

Pros of elliptic

• Focused specifically on elliptic curve cryptography, providing more specialized functionality
• Supports a wider range of elliptic curves, including popular ones like secp256k1
• Generally faster performance for elliptic curve operations

Cons of elliptic

• Less comprehensive than sjcl, which offers a broader range of cryptographic primitives
• Smaller community and less frequent updates compared to sjcl
• May require additional libraries for non-elliptic curve cryptographic operations

Code Comparison

elliptic:

const EC = require('elliptic').ec;
const ec = new EC('secp256k1');
const key = ec.genKeyPair();
const signature = key.sign(msgHash);
console.log(signature.toDER('hex'));

sjcl:

var keys = sjcl.ecc.ecdsa.generateKeys(256);
var sig = keys.sec.sign(hash);
console.log(sjcl.codec.hex.fromBits(sig));

Both libraries provide elliptic curve functionality, but elliptic offers a more specialized and extensive set of curve options. sjcl, on the other hand, provides a broader range of cryptographic primitives beyond just elliptic curves. The code examples demonstrate the slight differences in API design and usage between the two libraries for similar operations.