Pros of age

• Written in Go, which offers better performance and easier deployment
• More mature project with a larger community and ecosystem
• Supports additional features like SSH key encryption

Cons of age

• Less flexible API for integration into other projects
• Slower development cycle and fewer recent updates
• Limited support for non-UNIX platforms

Code Comparison

age:

recipient, err := age.ParseX25519Recipient(pubKey)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatalf("Failed to parse public key: %v", err)
}

rage:

let recipient = age::x25519::Recipient::from_str(pub_key)?;

Both projects implement the age encryption protocol, but rage is written in Rust while age is written in Go. The code snippets show how to create a recipient from a public key in each library.

rage offers a more idiomatic Rust API with better error handling through the Result type, while age uses Go's traditional error handling approach. The rage implementation is more concise and leverages Rust's type system for improved safety.

Overall, age is more established and widely used, while rage provides a Rust-native implementation with a more ergonomic API for Rust developers. The choice between them often depends on the programming language preference and specific project requirements.

Pros of minisign

• Simpler and more focused on file signing
• Lightweight and easy to use
• Cross-platform compatibility

Cons of minisign

• Limited to file signing, lacks encryption capabilities
• Fewer features compared to rage's comprehensive toolset

Code comparison

minisign:

minisign -Sm myfile.txt
minisign -Vm myfile.txt -P RWQf6LRCGA9i53mlYecO4IzT51TGPpvWucNSCh1CBM0QTaLn73Y7GFO3

rage:

rage -e -o myfile.txt.age myfile.txt
rage -d -i key.txt myfile.txt.age

Key differences

• minisign focuses on file signing and verification
• rage offers both encryption and signing capabilities
• minisign uses Ed25519 signatures, while rage supports multiple encryption algorithms
• rage provides a more comprehensive set of features for secure communication and file handling

Use cases

minisign is ideal for:

• Simple file signing and verification
• Scenarios where lightweight, focused tools are preferred

rage is better suited for:

• Comprehensive secure communication needs
• Projects requiring both encryption and signing capabilities
• Situations where flexibility in encryption algorithms is necessary

Both tools prioritize security and ease of use, but cater to different needs in the cryptographic toolset landscape.

Pros of Saltpack

• More established project with longer history and wider adoption
• Supports multiple message formats (encryption, signing, detached signing)
• Designed for both human-readable and binary output

Cons of Saltpack

• More complex implementation with additional dependencies
• Slower performance for large file encryption
• Less active development in recent years

Code Comparison

Saltpack encryption example:

encrypted, err := saltpack.Encrypt(
    message,
    saltpack.NewKeyring(senderSecretKey),
    []saltpack.BoxPublicKey{recipientPublicKey},
)

Rage encryption example:

let encrypted = age::Encryptor::with_recipients(vec![recipient])
    .encrypt_bytes(&message)?;

Key Differences

• Rage focuses on simplicity and performance, while Saltpack offers more features
• Rage uses the Age encryption format, Saltpack uses its own custom format
• Rage is implemented in Rust, Saltpack in Go (with bindings for other languages)
• Rage has a more active development community currently

Both projects aim to provide secure, modern encryption tools for developers and end-users, but with different approaches to design and implementation. Rage prioritizes simplicity and performance, while Saltpack offers a broader range of features and message formats.

Pros of sops

• Supports multiple key management systems (AWS KMS, GCP KMS, Azure Key Vault, etc.)
• Allows partial encryption of files, maintaining structure for easy editing
• Integrates well with version control systems and CI/CD pipelines

Cons of sops

• More complex setup and configuration compared to rage
• Requires external key management services for full functionality
• May have a steeper learning curve for new users

Code comparison

sops:

myapp:
    db:
        user: ENC[AES256_GCM,data:...] # Encrypted value
        password: ENC[AES256_GCM,data:...] # Encrypted value

rage:

age-encryption.org/v1
-> X25519 yXNuRQyPo7W1oT9sHpMvfg1WTHNWcdLCgyx9QLzPukU
... (encrypted content)

Summary

sops offers more flexibility and integration options, making it suitable for complex enterprise environments. It excels in scenarios requiring partial file encryption and integration with cloud key management services. rage, on the other hand, provides a simpler, file-based encryption approach that may be more appropriate for individual users or smaller projects with straightforward encryption needs.

Pros of Tink

• Broader cryptographic functionality, including digital signatures, MACs, and hybrid encryption
• Extensive language support (C++, Java, Go, Python, JavaScript)
• Backed by Google, potentially offering more resources and long-term support

Cons of Tink

• More complex API and setup process
• Larger codebase and dependencies, potentially increasing attack surface
• Less focused on age encryption format compatibility

Code Comparison

Tink (encryption example):

keysetHandle, err := keyset.NewHandle(aead.AES256GCMKeyTemplate())
a, err := aead.New(keysetHandle)
ciphertext, err := a.Encrypt(plaintext, associatedData)

Rage (encryption example):

let encryptor = age::Encryptor::with_recipients(vec![recipient])
    .expect("failed to create encryptor");
let mut encrypted = vec![];
let mut writer = encryptor.wrap_output(&mut encrypted)?;
writer.write_all(message.as_bytes())?;
writer.finish()?;

Both libraries offer encryption functionality, but Tink provides a more generalized approach with its keysetHandle and AEAD interface, while Rage focuses specifically on the age encryption format with a more streamlined API.

Pros of gopenpgp

• Developed by ProtonMail, a well-known privacy-focused company
• Extensive support for OpenPGP standard, including key management and encryption
• Well-documented API with examples for various use cases

Cons of gopenpgp

• Larger codebase and potentially more complex to integrate
• Focused primarily on OpenPGP, which may be overkill for simpler encryption needs
• Slower development pace compared to rage

Code Comparison

gopenpgp:

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

rage:

let public_key = age::x25519::Recipient::from_str(public_key_string)?;
let encrypted = age::Encryptor::with_recipients(vec![Box::new(public_key)])
    .encrypt_bytes(b"Hello, World!")?;

Both libraries provide encryption functionality, but rage offers a more streamlined API for simple encryption tasks, while gopenpgp provides more comprehensive OpenPGP features.