Pros of Forge

• More comprehensive cryptographic library with a wider range of algorithms and functions
• Active development and maintenance, with regular updates and bug fixes
• Better performance for certain cryptographic operations

Cons of Forge

• Larger file size and potentially more complex to integrate
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• May be overkill for projects that only require basic RSA encryption

Code Comparison

Forge (RSA encryption):

var publicKey = forge.pki.publicKeyFromPem(publicKeyPem);
var encrypted = publicKey.encrypt(plaintext);

JSEncrypt (RSA encryption):

var encrypt = new JSEncrypt();
encrypt.setPublicKey(publicKeyPem);
var encrypted = encrypt.encrypt(plaintext);

Both libraries provide similar functionality for RSA encryption, but Forge offers a more extensive API for various cryptographic operations. JSEncrypt is more focused on RSA encryption and decryption, making it simpler for basic use cases.

Forge is better suited for projects requiring a wide range of cryptographic functions, while JSEncrypt is ideal for simpler implementations focusing primarily on RSA encryption.

Pros of crypto-js

• Broader range of cryptographic functions (AES, DES, TripleDES, etc.)
• Supports various modes of operation (ECB, CBC, CFB, OFB, CTR)
• Active development and regular updates

Cons of crypto-js

• Larger file size due to comprehensive feature set
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners
• Performance can be slower for certain operations compared to specialized libraries

Code Comparison

jsencrypt (RSA encryption):

var encrypt = new JSEncrypt();
encrypt.setPublicKey(publicKey);
var encrypted = encrypt.encrypt(message);

crypto-js (AES encryption):

var encrypted = CryptoJS.AES.encrypt(message, secretKey);
var decrypted = CryptoJS.AES.decrypt(encrypted, secretKey);
var originalText = decrypted.toString(CryptoJS.enc.Utf8);

Summary

jsencrypt focuses specifically on RSA encryption, making it lightweight and easy to use for RSA operations. crypto-js, on the other hand, offers a comprehensive suite of cryptographic functions, including symmetric and asymmetric encryption, hashing, and more. While crypto-js provides greater flexibility, it may be overkill for projects that only require RSA encryption. The choice between the two depends on the specific cryptographic needs of your project and the desired balance between functionality and simplicity.

Pros of SJCL

• Offers a broader range of cryptographic functions, including symmetric encryption, hashing, and key derivation
• Provides a more comprehensive cryptographic library with various modes of operation
• Actively maintained with regular updates and contributions

Cons of SJCL

• Larger file size and potentially higher overhead due to its comprehensive nature
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers who only need basic encryption functionality
• Requires more setup and configuration for simple use cases

Code Comparison

SJCL (Symmetric encryption example):

var plaintext = "Hello, World!";
var password = "secret";
var ciphertext = sjcl.encrypt(password, plaintext);
var decrypted = sjcl.decrypt(password, ciphertext);

JSEncrypt (RSA encryption example):

var encrypt = new JSEncrypt();
encrypt.setPublicKey(publicKey);
var encrypted = encrypt.encrypt("Hello, World!");
var decrypt = new JSEncrypt();
decrypt.setPrivateKey(privateKey);
var decrypted = decrypt.decrypt(encrypted);

The code examples demonstrate the different focus of each library. SJCL provides symmetric encryption with a simple API, while JSEncrypt specializes in RSA encryption and decryption. SJCL offers a more versatile set of cryptographic functions, whereas JSEncrypt is more focused on RSA operations.

Pros of elliptic

• Supports a wider range of elliptic curve cryptography operations
• Generally faster performance for ECC operations
• More actively maintained with regular updates

Cons of elliptic

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Lacks built-in support for RSA encryption (focus is on ECC)

Code Comparison

elliptic:

const EC = require('elliptic').ec;
const ec = new EC('secp256k1');
const key = ec.genKeyPair();
const publicKey = key.getPublic('hex');
const signature = key.sign('message').toDER('hex');

jsencrypt:

const encrypt = new JSEncrypt();
encrypt.setPublicKey('-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----...');
const encrypted = encrypt.encrypt('message');
const decrypt = new JSEncrypt();
decrypt.setPrivateKey('-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----...');
const decrypted = decrypt.decrypt(encrypted);

Summary

elliptic is more focused on elliptic curve cryptography, offering a broader range of ECC operations with better performance. It's actively maintained but has a steeper learning curve. jsencrypt, on the other hand, provides a simpler API primarily for RSA encryption and decryption, making it easier to use for basic public-key cryptography tasks but with limited functionality compared to elliptic.

Pros of aes-js

• Focused specifically on AES encryption, providing a lightweight solution
• Supports various modes of operation (ECB, CBC, CFB, OFB, CTR)
• Pure JavaScript implementation, making it easy to use in browser environments

Cons of aes-js

• Limited to AES encryption, lacking support for other cryptographic algorithms
• May require additional libraries for key generation and management
• Less actively maintained compared to jsencrypt

Code Comparison

aes-js:

var aesjs = require('aes-js');
var key = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16];
var text = 'Text may be any length you wish, no padding is required.';
var textBytes = aesjs.utils.utf8.toBytes(text);
var aesCtr = new aesjs.ModeOfOperation.ctr(key, new aesjs.Counter(5));
var encryptedBytes = aesCtr.encrypt(textBytes);

jsencrypt:

var encrypt = new JSEncrypt();
encrypt.setPublicKey('-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----...');
var encrypted = encrypt.encrypt('Hello World!');
var decrypt = new JSEncrypt();
decrypt.setPrivateKey('-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----...');
var uncrypted = decrypt.decrypt(encrypted);

The code examples demonstrate the different focus of each library. aes-js provides low-level AES operations, while jsencrypt offers higher-level RSA encryption with key management.

Pros of uuid

• Focused on generating UUIDs, providing a simple and specific functionality
• Lightweight and efficient, with minimal dependencies
• Supports multiple UUID versions (v1, v3, v4, v5) and namespaces

Cons of uuid

• Limited to UUID generation, lacking encryption capabilities
• May require additional libraries for more complex cryptographic operations
• Not designed for handling RSA encryption or decryption tasks

Code Comparison

uuid example:

import { v4 as uuidv4 } from 'uuid';
const id = uuidv4();
console.log(id); // e.g. '1b9d6bcd-bbfd-4b2d-9b5d-ab8dfbbd4bed'

jsencrypt example:

var encrypt = new JSEncrypt();
encrypt.setPublicKey('-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----...');
var encrypted = encrypt.encrypt('Hello, World!');
console.log(encrypted);

Summary

uuid is a specialized library for generating UUIDs, while jsencrypt focuses on RSA encryption. uuid is more lightweight and efficient for its specific task, but lacks the broader cryptographic capabilities of jsencrypt. The choice between them depends on whether you need UUID generation or RSA encryption functionality in your project.