Pros of age

• Supports multiple recipients and file encryption
• Offers both symmetric and asymmetric encryption
• More modern cryptographic primitives (ChaCha20-Poly1305, X25519)

Cons of age

• Larger codebase and more complex implementation
• Less widespread adoption compared to minisign
• Requires more setup for key management

Code Comparison

minisign:

crypto_sign_keypair(pk, sk);
crypto_sign_detached(sig, &siglen, m, mlen, sk);
ret = crypto_sign_verify_detached(sig, m, mlen, pk);

age:

recipient, _ := age.ParseX25519Recipient(pubKey)
encrypted, _ := age.Encrypt(output, recipient)
decrypted, _ := age.Decrypt(input, identities...)

Summary

age offers more features and modern cryptography, making it suitable for complex encryption scenarios. minisign, on the other hand, focuses on simplicity and ease of use for file signing. age's flexibility comes at the cost of increased complexity, while minisign's straightforward approach may limit its use cases but ensures widespread compatibility and easier adoption.

Pros of libsignal

• Comprehensive end-to-end encryption library for secure messaging
• Supports advanced features like forward secrecy and deniable authentication
• Actively maintained and used in popular messaging applications

Cons of libsignal

• More complex implementation due to its extensive feature set
• Larger codebase and potentially higher resource usage
• Steeper learning curve for developers

Code Comparison

minisign (simple signature verification):

unsigned char pk[crypto_sign_PUBLICKEYBYTES];
unsigned char sig[crypto_sign_BYTES];
if (crypto_sign_verify_detached(sig, message, message_len, pk) != 0) {
    /* Signature verification failed */
}

libsignal (establishing a secure session):

SessionBuilder sessionBuilder = new SessionBuilder(store, recipientId);
SessionCipher sessionCipher = new SessionCipher(store, recipientId);
CiphertextMessage message = sessionCipher.encrypt("Hello, world!".getBytes());

Summary

minisign focuses on simple and efficient file signing, while libsignal provides a comprehensive solution for secure messaging. minisign is easier to use for basic signing needs, while libsignal offers more advanced features at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of gopenpgp

• More comprehensive cryptographic functionality, including key management and encryption
• Supports OpenPGP standard, allowing interoperability with other PGP implementations
• Actively maintained by ProtonMail, a well-known privacy-focused company

Cons of gopenpgp

• More complex to use due to its broader feature set
• Larger codebase and dependencies, potentially increasing attack surface
• May be overkill for simple signing and verification tasks

Code Comparison

minisign (simple signature verification):

func Verify(publicKey, signature, message []byte) error {
    return minisign.Verify(publicKey, signature, message)
}

gopenpgp (signature verification with more options):

func VerifyDetached(message, signature []byte, verifierKey *crypto.Key, verificationTime int64) (bool, error) {
    return crypto.NewPGPMessage(signature).VerifyDetached(crypto.NewPlainMessage(message), verifierKey, verificationTime)
}

Summary

minisign focuses on simplicity and ease of use for basic signing and verification tasks, while gopenpgp offers a more comprehensive suite of cryptographic functions adhering to the OpenPGP standard. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project, with minisign being more suitable for straightforward signing needs and gopenpgp for more complex cryptographic operations.

Pros of Saltpack

• More comprehensive cryptographic protocol, supporting encryption and signing
• Designed for modern use cases, including streaming and multi-recipient encryption
• Robust key management system integrated with Keybase platform

Cons of Saltpack

• More complex implementation and usage compared to Minisign
• Requires Keybase ecosystem for full functionality
• Larger codebase and dependencies

Code Comparison

Minisign (signing a file):

minisign -Sm myfile.txt

Saltpack (signing a file):

keybase pgp sign -i myfile.txt -o myfile.txt.signed

Key Differences

• Minisign focuses solely on digital signatures, while Saltpack offers a broader range of cryptographic operations
• Minisign is a standalone tool, whereas Saltpack is tightly integrated with the Keybase platform
• Saltpack provides more advanced features like multi-recipient encryption and streaming support

Use Cases

• Minisign: Simple file signing and verification, software distribution
• Saltpack: Secure messaging, file encryption, and signing within the Keybase ecosystem

Community and Development

• Minisign: Smaller, focused community; actively maintained
• Saltpack: Larger ecosystem due to Keybase integration; development status uncertain following Keybase acquisition

Pros of awesome-cryptography

• Comprehensive resource for cryptography-related tools, libraries, and information
• Regularly updated with community contributions
• Covers a wide range of cryptographic topics and applications

Cons of awesome-cryptography

• Not a standalone tool or library for cryptographic operations
• May require additional research to determine the best tools for specific use cases
• Can be overwhelming for beginners due to the vast amount of information

Code comparison

Not applicable, as awesome-cryptography is a curated list of resources rather than a code repository. Minisign, on the other hand, is a practical tool for creating and verifying cryptographic signatures. Here's a basic example of using Minisign:

# Generate a key pair
minisign -G

# Sign a file
minisign -Sm myfile.txt

# Verify a signature
minisign -Vm myfile.txt -P RWQf6LRCGA9i53mlYecO4IzT51TGPpvWucNSCh1CBM0QTaLn73Y7GFO3

Summary

Minisign is a focused tool for cryptographic signatures, while awesome-cryptography is a comprehensive resource for various cryptographic topics. Minisign provides practical functionality, whereas awesome-cryptography offers a wealth of information and links to other tools and libraries. Choose Minisign for specific signature needs, and use awesome-cryptography for research and discovering a wide range of cryptographic resources.

Pros of Tink

• Comprehensive cryptographic library with support for various primitives
• Cross-platform compatibility (Java, C++, Go, Python)
• Actively maintained by Google with regular updates

Cons of Tink

• Larger and more complex codebase
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• May be overkill for simple signing tasks

Code Comparison

Minisign (signing a file)

#include "minisign.h"

int main(void) {
    minisign_sign_file("input.txt", "output.sig", secretkey, NULL);
    return 0;
}

Tink (signing data)

import com.google.crypto.tink.signature.SignatureConfig;

public class TinkExample {
    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
        SignatureConfig.register();
        KeysetHandle keysetHandle = KeysetHandle.generateNew(SignatureKeyTemplates.ED25519);
        PublicKeySign signer = keysetHandle.getPrimitive(PublicKeySign.class);
        byte[] signature = signer.sign("data to sign".getBytes());
    }
}

Summary

Minisign is a lightweight, focused tool for file signing, while Tink is a comprehensive cryptographic library. Minisign offers simplicity and ease of use for specific signing tasks, whereas Tink provides a wide range of cryptographic primitives and cross-platform support. The choice between them depends on the project's requirements and complexity.