Pros of minisign

• Simpler and more lightweight, focusing solely on file signing and verification
• Easier to integrate into existing workflows due to its minimalistic approach
• Faster execution for basic signing tasks

Cons of minisign

• Limited functionality compared to Saltpack's broader feature set
• Lacks advanced features like encryption and streaming support
• Not designed for multi-recipient scenarios or complex key management

Code comparison

minisign:

unsigned char pk[crypto_sign_PUBLICKEYBYTES];
unsigned char sk[crypto_sign_SECRETKEYBYTES];
crypto_sign_keypair(pk, sk);

Saltpack:

keyring, err := keyring.NewKeyring()
if err != nil {
    return err
}

Summary

minisign is a lightweight tool focused on simple file signing and verification, making it easy to integrate and use for basic tasks. Saltpack, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive suite of cryptographic operations, including encryption and multi-recipient support. While minisign excels in simplicity and speed for straightforward signing tasks, Saltpack provides greater flexibility and advanced features for more complex cryptographic needs.

Pros of age

• Simpler and more lightweight design, focusing on file encryption
• Supports multiple key types (X25519, SSH keys) for flexibility
• Actively maintained and developed

Cons of age

• Less feature-rich compared to Saltpack (e.g., no signing or detached signatures)
• Newer project with potentially less battle-testing and ecosystem support
• Limited to file encryption, while Saltpack offers a broader range of operations

Code Comparison

age:

recipient, err := age.ParseX25519Recipient(pubKey)
file, err := age.Encrypt(output, recipient)
_, err = io.Copy(file, input)

Saltpack:

mki := saltpack.NewMsgpackKeyIdentifier()
signer := saltpack.NewSigningPublicKey(publicKey)
stream, err := saltpack.NewEncryptStream(output, mki, signer, recipients)
_, err = io.Copy(stream, input)

Summary

age is a more focused and lightweight tool for file encryption, while Saltpack offers a broader range of cryptographic operations. age supports multiple key types and is actively maintained, but it lacks some features present in Saltpack, such as signing capabilities. The choice between the two depends on specific use cases and required features.

Pros of gopenpgp

• Implements the widely-used OpenPGP standard, ensuring broad compatibility
• Actively maintained by ProtonMail, a reputable privacy-focused company
• Provides a comprehensive set of cryptographic operations beyond just encryption

Cons of gopenpgp

• More complex API compared to Saltpack's streamlined approach
• Larger codebase and potentially steeper learning curve
• OpenPGP standard has known limitations and complexities

Code Comparison

gopenpgp:

publicKey, err := crypto.NewKeyFromArmored(publicKeyString)
message := crypto.NewPlainMessage([]byte("Hello, World!"))
encrypted, err := publicKey.Encrypt(message, nil)

Saltpack:

encrypted, err := saltpack.Encrypt(
    []byte("Hello, World!"),
    saltpack.NewBoxKey(publicKey),
    nil,
)

Summary

gopenpgp offers a robust implementation of the OpenPGP standard with a wide range of features, backed by ProtonMail's expertise. However, it may be more complex to use compared to Saltpack's simpler approach. Saltpack, developed by Keybase, provides a more modern and streamlined encryption solution but may have less widespread adoption. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, desired compatibility, and ease of use preferences.

Pros of Tink

• Broader cryptographic functionality, including key management, digital signatures, and more
• Extensive language support (C++, Java, Go, Python, and JavaScript)
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of Tink

• More complex to use due to its extensive feature set
• Larger codebase and dependencies, potentially increasing attack surface
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to cryptography

Code Comparison

Saltpack (encryption):

sealed_box = saltpack.encrypt(message, [recipient_public_key])

Tink (encryption):

primitive = handle.primitive(aead.Aead)
ciphertext = primitive.encrypt(plaintext, associated_data)

Additional Notes

Saltpack focuses specifically on message encryption and signing, while Tink provides a more comprehensive cryptographic toolkit. Saltpack's simplicity may be preferable for projects with narrow cryptographic needs, while Tink's extensive features make it suitable for more complex applications requiring various cryptographic operations.

Tink's active development and broader language support make it a strong choice for large-scale projects, especially those requiring cross-platform compatibility. However, Saltpack's straightforward API and focused functionality can be advantageous for developers seeking a simpler solution for secure messaging.

Pros of libsignal-protocol-c

• Implements the Signal Protocol, which is widely recognized for its security and privacy features
• Written in C, offering better performance and wider compatibility across platforms
• Actively maintained and used by Signal, a popular secure messaging application

Cons of libsignal-protocol-c

• More complex implementation, requiring deeper cryptographic knowledge to use effectively
• Focused specifically on messaging protocols, less versatile for general-purpose encryption tasks
• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with low-level C programming

Code Comparison

libsignal-protocol-c:

signal_protocol_store_context *store_context;
signal_protocol_store_context_create(&store_context, context);
signal_protocol_store_context_set_session_store(store_context, &session_store);
signal_protocol_store_context_set_pre_key_store(store_context, &pre_key_store);
signal_protocol_store_context_set_signed_pre_key_store(store_context, &signed_pre_key_store);

Saltpack:

var secretKey saltpack.SigningSecretKey
var publicKey saltpack.SigningPublicKey
secretKey, publicKey, err := saltpack.GenerateSigningKeyPair()
sealed, err := saltpack.Seal(message, secretKey, recipients...)
opened, senderKey, err := saltpack.Open(sealed, keyring)

The libsignal-protocol-c code focuses on setting up the protocol context and stores, while Saltpack's code demonstrates simpler key generation and message sealing/opening operations. Saltpack appears to have a more straightforward API for general encryption tasks, while libsignal-protocol-c is tailored for secure messaging implementations.