Pros of Forge

• More comprehensive cryptographic toolkit with a wider range of algorithms and utilities
• Better performance for certain operations, especially in Node.js environments
• Active development and maintenance with regular updates

Cons of Forge

• Larger bundle size, which may impact load times in browser environments
• Steeper learning curve due to its more extensive API and features
• Less widespread adoption compared to Crypto-js

Code Comparison

Forge:

var md = forge.md.sha256.create();
md.update('The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog');
console.log(md.digest().toHex());

Crypto-js:

var hash = CryptoJS.SHA256('The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog');
console.log(hash.toString(CryptoJS.enc.Hex));

Both libraries provide similar functionality for common cryptographic operations, but Forge offers a more object-oriented approach with additional methods and options. Crypto-js tends to have a simpler API for basic use cases, while Forge provides more flexibility and control over the cryptographic processes.

Forge is generally preferred for more complex cryptographic needs or when performance is crucial, especially in Node.js environments. Crypto-js remains popular for its simplicity and ease of use, particularly in browser-based applications where a smaller bundle size is advantageous.

Pros of elliptic

• Specialized for elliptic curve cryptography, offering more advanced ECC operations
• Lightweight and focused, potentially better performance for ECC-specific tasks
• Supports a wider range of elliptic curves and algorithms

Cons of elliptic

• Limited to elliptic curve cryptography, less versatile for general cryptographic needs
• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to the more popular crypto-js
• May require more cryptographic expertise to use effectively

Code Comparison

elliptic:

const EC = require('elliptic').ec;
const ec = new EC('secp256k1');
const key = ec.genKeyPair();
const publicKey = key.getPublic('hex');
const signature = key.sign('message').toDER('hex');

crypto-js:

const CryptoJS = require('crypto-js');
const message = 'Hello, World!';
const secret = 'mySecret';
const encrypted = CryptoJS.AES.encrypt(message, secret).toString();
const decrypted = CryptoJS.AES.decrypt(encrypted, secret).toString(CryptoJS.enc.Utf8);

Summary

elliptic is a specialized library for elliptic curve cryptography, offering advanced ECC operations and supporting various curves. It's lightweight and potentially more performant for ECC tasks. However, it's limited in scope compared to crypto-js, which provides a broader range of cryptographic functions. crypto-js is more versatile and has a larger community, making it easier to use for general cryptographic needs. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your level of cryptographic expertise.

Pros of sjcl

• Better performance for certain cryptographic operations
• More comprehensive suite of cryptographic primitives
• Designed with a focus on security and resistance to side-channel attacks

Cons of sjcl

• Less actively maintained compared to crypto-js
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Smaller community and fewer resources available online

Code Comparison

sjcl:

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

crypto-js:

var encrypted = CryptoJS.AES.encrypt("message", "password");
var decrypted = CryptoJS.AES.decrypt(encrypted, "password").toString(CryptoJS.enc.Utf8);

Both libraries offer similar functionality for basic encryption and decryption operations. However, sjcl provides a more concise API for these tasks, while crypto-js requires additional steps for decryption and encoding.

sjcl is generally considered more secure and performant for advanced cryptographic operations, but crypto-js has a larger user base and more frequent updates. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, security needs, and developer familiarity with each library.

Pros of TweetNaCl-js

• Focused on modern, high-security cryptographic primitives
• Smaller library size, suitable for lightweight applications
• Implements the entire NaCl cryptography library in JavaScript

Cons of TweetNaCl-js

• Limited to NaCl algorithms, less versatile than CryptoJS
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers unfamiliar with NaCl

Code Comparison

TweetNaCl-js:

import nacl from 'tweetnacl';

const keyPair = nacl.box.keyPair();
const message = 'Hello, World!';
const nonce = nacl.randomBytes(nacl.box.nonceLength);
const encrypted = nacl.box(message, nonce, keyPair.publicKey, keyPair.secretKey);

CryptoJS:

import CryptoJS from 'crypto-js';

const secretKey = 'mySecretKey';
const message = 'Hello, World!';
const encrypted = CryptoJS.AES.encrypt(message, secretKey).toString();

Summary

TweetNaCl-js is a compact, modern cryptography library focused on NaCl algorithms, while CryptoJS offers a broader range of cryptographic functions. TweetNaCl-js is ideal for projects requiring high-security primitives and minimal size, whereas CryptoJS provides more versatility and familiarity for general-purpose cryptography needs.

Pros of aes-js

• Lightweight and focused specifically on AES encryption
• Provides a simpler API for basic AES operations
• Supports various modes of operation (ECB, CBC, CFB, OFB, CTR)

Cons of aes-js

• Limited to AES encryption only, lacking other cryptographic functions
• Less actively maintained compared to crypto-js
• Smaller community and fewer resources available

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 text = 'Text may be any length you wish, no padding is required.';
var textBytes = aesjs.utils.utf8.toBytes(text);
var aesCtr = new aesjs.ModeOfOperation.ctr(key, new aesjs.Counter(5));
var encryptedBytes = aesCtr.encrypt(textBytes);

crypto-js:

var CryptoJS = require('crypto-js');
var key = CryptoJS.enc.Utf8.parse('1234567890123456');
var iv = CryptoJS.enc.Utf8.parse('1234567890123456');
var encrypted = CryptoJS.AES.encrypt('Message', key, { iv: iv });
var decrypted = CryptoJS.AES.decrypt(encrypted, key, { iv: iv });

Both libraries offer AES encryption capabilities, but crypto-js provides a more comprehensive set of cryptographic functions beyond just AES. aes-js is more lightweight and focused, while crypto-js offers a broader range of features and has a larger community. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and the need for additional cryptographic operations.