Pros of Vault

• More comprehensive secret management solution, handling various types of secrets beyond just certificates
• Extensive ecosystem with integrations and plugins for many popular tools and platforms
• Advanced features like dynamic secrets, leasing, and revocation

Cons of Vault

• Steeper learning curve due to its broader feature set
• Higher resource requirements for deployment and maintenance
• May be overkill for organizations primarily focused on certificate management

Code Comparison

Vault (HCL configuration):

path "secret/data/myapp" {
  capabilities = ["read", "list"]
}

Certificates (JSON configuration):

{
  "root": "root_ca.crt",
  "crt": "intermediate_ca.crt",
  "key": "intermediate_ca.key"
}

Both projects use different configuration formats, with Vault typically using HCL and Certificates using JSON. Vault's configuration often focuses on access control and secret paths, while Certificates' configuration is more centered around certificate-specific details.

Vault offers a more extensive feature set for secret management, making it suitable for larger organizations with diverse security needs. Certificates, on the other hand, provides a more focused solution for certificate management, which may be preferable for smaller teams or those primarily concerned with PKI infrastructure.

Pros of cfssl

• More mature project with longer development history
• Broader feature set, including OCSP and CRL support
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of cfssl

• Less active development in recent years
• More complex setup and configuration process
• Heavier resource usage for simple certificate management tasks

Code Comparison

cfssl:

cert, err := sign.SignerFromConfig(c)
if err != nil {
    return err
}

certificates:

cert, err := ca.Sign(csr, provisioner, signOpts...)
if err != nil {
    return err
}

Both projects provide Go libraries for certificate management, but certificates offers a more streamlined API for common operations. cfssl's API is more comprehensive but can be more complex to use.

certificates focuses on modern PKI practices and automation, while cfssl offers a wider range of traditional PKI features. certificates is more actively maintained and provides better integration with cloud-native environments.

For simple certificate management tasks, certificates may be easier to set up and use. However, for organizations requiring advanced PKI features or those already using Cloudflare's ecosystem, cfssl might be a better fit.

Pros of mkcert

• Simpler and more lightweight, focused on local development
• Easier to use for beginners with minimal configuration
• Supports a wide range of operating systems and browsers

Cons of mkcert

• Limited to local development; not suitable for production environments
• Lacks advanced features like certificate revocation and OCSP stapling
• Does not support automated certificate renewal

Code Comparison

mkcert:

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

certificates:

step ca init
step ca certificate example.com example.com.crt example.com.key

mkcert focuses on simplicity for local development, while certificates offers a more comprehensive solution for both development and production environments. mkcert generates certificates with a single command, whereas certificates requires initialization and separate certificate creation steps.

certificates provides a full-featured certificate authority with advanced capabilities, making it more suitable for complex deployments and production use. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity and a steeper learning curve compared to mkcert.

Both tools serve different purposes: mkcert excels in quick local setups, while certificates offers a robust, scalable solution for various certificate management needs.

Pros of Boulder

• Widely adopted and battle-tested in production environments
• Supports a broader range of certificate types and use cases
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of Boulder

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Higher resource requirements for deployment
• Steeper learning curve for newcomers

Code Comparison

Boulder (Go):

func (ca *CertificateAuthorityImpl) IssuePrecertificate(ctx context.Context, issueReq *capb.IssueCertificateRequest) (*capb.IssuePrecertificateResponse, error) {
    // Implementation details
}

Certificates (Go):

func (c *CA) Sign(req *api.SignRequest) (*api.SignResponse, error) {
    // Implementation details
}

Both projects are written in Go and provide certificate issuance functionality. Boulder's codebase is more extensive and complex, reflecting its broader feature set. Certificates offers a more streamlined approach, focusing on simplicity and ease of use.

Boulder is the software powering Let's Encrypt, making it a robust choice for large-scale deployments. Certificates, on the other hand, is designed for easier integration into existing systems and workflows, making it more suitable for smaller-scale or custom certificate authority needs.

Pros of certstrap

• Simpler and more lightweight tool, focused specifically on certificate creation and management
• Easier to use for basic certificate operations without extensive configuration
• Faster execution for simple certificate tasks due to its focused nature

Cons of certstrap

• Limited features compared to certificates, which offers a more comprehensive PKI solution
• Lacks advanced features like ACME support and HSM integration
• Not actively maintained, with fewer recent updates and contributions

Code comparison

certstrap:

cert, err := pkix.CreateCertificateAuthority(
    cn, ou, org, country, province, locality, years,
    key, passphrase, crtOut, keyOut,
)

certificates:

ca, err := ca.New(&ca.Options{
    Name:         "My Root CA",
    Subject:      subject,
    Provisioner:  provisioner,
    WithoutClaim: true,
})

Both projects provide Go-based solutions for certificate management, but certificates offers a more extensive API with additional features and flexibility. certstrap focuses on simplicity and ease of use for basic certificate operations, while certificates provides a more comprehensive PKI solution with advanced features like ACME support and HSM integration.

Pros of easy-rsa

• Widely adopted and well-established in the OpenVPN ecosystem
• Simple and straightforward for basic PKI management
• Lightweight and easy to set up for small-scale deployments

Cons of easy-rsa

• Limited automation capabilities compared to more modern solutions
• Lacks advanced features like ACME support and HSM integration
• May require more manual intervention for complex certificate management tasks

Code Comparison

easy-rsa:

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

certificates:

step ca init
step ca certificate "example.com" example.crt example.key
step ca renew example.crt example.key

The easy-rsa script uses a series of commands to initialize the PKI, build a CA, and generate certificates. In contrast, certificates (smallstep) offers a more streamlined approach with fewer commands and built-in support for certificate renewal.

certificates provides a more modern and feature-rich solution for PKI management, including ACME support, HSM integration, and advanced automation capabilities. It's designed for scalability and ease of use in complex environments. However, easy-rsa remains a solid choice for simpler setups and those already invested in the OpenVPN ecosystem.