Pros of cfssl

• More comprehensive PKI toolkit with additional features like OCSP and CRL support
• Better suited for large-scale deployments and enterprise environments
• Offers a RESTful API for easier integration with other systems

Cons of cfssl

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex functionality
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic use cases
• Heavier resource usage compared to certstrap

Code comparison

certstrap:

certstrap init --common-name "Example CA"
certstrap request-cert --common-name "example.com"
certstrap sign example.com --CA "Example CA"

cfssl:

{
  "signing": {
    "default": {
      "expiry": "8760h"
    }
  }
}

cfssl gencert -initca ca-csr.json | cfssljson -bare ca
cfssl gencert -ca ca.pem -ca-key ca-key.pem -config config.json -profile server server.json | cfssljson -bare server

certstrap is more straightforward for simple certificate generation, while cfssl offers more flexibility and configuration options but requires more setup.

Pros of mkcert

• Simpler and more user-friendly, designed for local development
• Automatically installs root CA in system and browser trust stores
• Supports multiple platforms (Windows, macOS, Linux) out of the box

Cons of mkcert

• Limited to local development use cases
• Fewer customization options for certificate generation
• Not designed for production or enterprise certificate management

Code Comparison

mkcert:

mkcert example.com "*.example.com" example.test localhost 127.0.0.1 ::1

certstrap:

certstrap init --common-name "Example CA"
certstrap request-cert --domain example.com
certstrap sign example.com --CA "Example CA"

Key Differences

• mkcert focuses on simplicity and ease of use for local development
• certstrap offers more flexibility and control over certificate generation
• mkcert automatically handles trust store management, while certstrap requires manual intervention
• certstrap is better suited for more complex certificate management scenarios
• mkcert has a single command for generating certificates, while certstrap uses a multi-step process

Both tools serve different purposes: mkcert is ideal for quick local development setups, while certstrap is more suitable for advanced certificate management needs and production environments.

Pros of certificates

• More comprehensive PKI solution with additional features like ACME support and HSM integration
• Active development with frequent updates and releases
• Better documentation and extensive CLI options

Cons of certificates

• Larger codebase and potentially more complex setup
• Steeper learning curve for basic certificate operations
• May be overkill for simple certificate management needs

Code comparison

certificates:

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

certstrap:

cert, err := pkix.CreateCertificateHost(caCert, caKey, name, years, org, country, state, locality, ip, domains)
if err != nil {
    return nil, err
}

Summary

certificates offers a more feature-rich and actively maintained solution for PKI management, while certstrap provides a simpler and more lightweight approach for basic certificate operations. certificates is better suited for complex environments and advanced use cases, whereas certstrap may be preferable for quick and straightforward certificate generation tasks. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project and the desired level of functionality.

Pros of easy-rsa

• More mature and widely used, especially in OpenVPN deployments
• Supports a broader range of certificate operations and key types
• Offers more customization options and flexibility

Cons of easy-rsa

• Written in Bash, which can be less portable and harder to maintain
• Requires more manual configuration and setup
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

easy-rsa:

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

certstrap:

certstrap init --common-name "CA"
certstrap request-cert --common-name "server"
certstrap sign "server" --CA "CA"

Both tools achieve similar goals, but certstrap offers a more streamlined and Go-based approach, while easy-rsa provides more extensive features through its Bash scripts. certstrap is designed for simplicity and ease of use, making it a good choice for quick setups or integration into Go projects. easy-rsa, on the other hand, offers more advanced features and is better suited for complex PKI management scenarios, particularly in OpenVPN environments.

Pros of Vault

• Comprehensive secret management solution with advanced features like dynamic secrets, encryption as a service, and audit logging
• Highly scalable and designed for enterprise use with support for multiple backends and storage options
• Active development with regular updates and a large community

Cons of Vault

• More complex setup and configuration compared to Certstrap's simplicity
• Higher resource requirements and potential overhead for smaller projects
• Steeper learning curve for users new to secret management systems

Code Comparison

Certstrap (generating a certificate):

certstrap init --common-name "CA"
certstrap request-cert --common-name "example.com"
certstrap sign example.com --CA "CA"

Vault (generating a certificate using PKI secrets engine):

vault secrets enable pki
vault write pki/root/generate/internal common_name="CA" ttl=87600h
vault write pki/roles/example-dot-com allowed_domains="example.com" allow_subdomains=true max_ttl="72h"
vault write pki/issue/example-dot-com common_name="example.com" ttl="24h"

While both tools can generate certificates, Vault offers more advanced configuration options and integrates with a broader secret management ecosystem. Certstrap focuses specifically on certificate generation and management, providing a simpler, more targeted solution for projects with less complex requirements.

Pros of Boulder

• Comprehensive ACME server implementation, supporting the full Let's Encrypt certificate issuance process
• Highly scalable and production-ready, used by Let's Encrypt to issue millions of certificates
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of Boulder

• Complex setup and configuration, requiring multiple components and dependencies
• Steep learning curve for newcomers to ACME and PKI systems
• Resource-intensive, may be overkill for small-scale or personal certificate management needs

Code Comparison

Boulder (Go):

func (ra *RegistrationAuthorityImpl) NewAuthorization(ctx context.Context, request core.Authorization, regID int64) (core.Authorization, error) {
    identifier := request.Identifier
    if identifier.Type != core.IdentifierDNS {
        return core.Authorization{}, berrors.MalformedError("invalid identifier type")
    }
    // ... (additional code)
}

Certstrap (Go):

func NewCertificate(cn string, o string, ou string, key *Key) (*Certificate, error) {
    now := time.Now()
    template := x509.Certificate{
        Subject: pkix.Name{
            CommonName:         cn,
            Organization:       []string{o},
            OrganizationalUnit: []string{ou},
        },
        // ... (additional code)
    }
}

Boulder focuses on ACME protocol implementation, while Certstrap provides simpler certificate generation functions.