4 ms·

I would personally recommend libsodium.js as the default choice for a JS crypto library: https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium.js https://github.com/jedisct1/li

by buu700 6y ago

I would personally recommend libsodium.js as the default choice for a JS crypto library: https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium.js https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium.js Fundamental issues with JS/web crypto aside, that is. You would still need something like WebSign (https://www.cyph.com/websign https://www.cyph.com/websign) or a framework like Electron that allows shipping your application outside of the browser.

traceroute66 6y ago
Agree on the libsodium recommendation. Stanford probably just suffering a little "not invented here" syndrome. Libsodium is a solid crypto library with long history. It is also embedded in PHP,HHVM,Citrine and Factor "out of the box" and has bindings for many other languages, not just Javascript. In my view, any competing crypto library would have to be something super special to outweigh all the pros of libsodium.
- hackernewsn00b 6y ago
  > Stanford probably just suffering a little "not invented here" syndrome. SJCL predates libsodium.js :)
  - thephyber 6y ago
    This appears so. From the SJCL documentation: > An older version of this implementation is available in the public domain, but this one is (c) Emily Stark, Mike Hamburg, Dan Boneh, Stanford University 2008-2010 and BSD-licensed for liability reasons.
- jonas21 6y ago
  > any competing crypto library would have to be something super special to outweigh all the pros of libsodium. Like interoperating with anything not designed by djb?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
BiteCode_dev 6y ago
SJCL is 6.4KB gzipped, libsodium is 188KB. If one plans to use the lib in the browser, it makes a huge difference. Also, I'm not a crypto expert by any mean, but SJCL seems higher level, and hence, easier to use. Not to mention harder to missuse. Projects like https://0bin.net https://0bin.net have been using it for 7 years, with 500000 visitors in the last few months, so I'd say it's pretty battle tested too. Not nearly has much as libsodium, of course. But I wouldn't discard SJCL, I think it has a place.
- buu700 6y ago
  That's a fair point, to some extent. If you're specifically looking to perform symmetric encryption on a string with a string-encoded password, then yes, SJCL is easier to use. The documentation is centered around that one simple example, and the library doesn't seem to do a lot else (at least through a high-level API). I also have a problem with NaCl/Sodium forcing users to handle nonces, rather than handling that detail internally by default. Besides that, Sodium isn't particularly more difficult to use than SJCL; the whole point is that it's an easy-to-use high-level interface that's hard to misuse. I would also note that SJCL's defaults are a bit dated (CCM vs GCM, 128-bit vs 256-bit, PBKDF2 vs a memory-hard KDF like scrypt or Argon2). Additionally, being pure JS would raise concerns about side channel attacks more so than WebAssembly (like libsodium.js) or native code (like WebCrypto). I'm sure there are simple use cases where SJCL provides some value, and I'm not saying data and applications that depend on it out in the wild should necessarily be considered already compromised, but I'd struggle to think of a situation where I would consider using it in a new project today, over either libsodium or nothing at all / just TLS.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  How does it compare to https://tweetnacl.js.org https://tweetnacl.js.org ? That's 7KB minified and gzipped.
  - BiteCode_dev 6y ago
    Never tried it
  - 6y ago
arvinsim 6y ago
Hmm I am currently testing out node-forge for encrypting/decrypting AES-256. Would you say that libsodium.js is better?
- buu700 6y ago
  I would go with libsodium.js (which binds to the native C library in Node.js) if you just need to encrypt/decrypt in general, especially if you anticipate building out other cryptographic features in the future. If you need AES in particular, node-forge is probably fine, although from a quick glance it looks almost identical to Node's built-in crypto API, in which case you could just use that, but they both look pretty inconvenient (excessively low-level) to use directly.
- technion 6y ago
  I haven't used this, so I went and read the documentation. node-forge is a good example of giving a user too many options in my view. As a developer looking to secure something, you've apparently decided on AES-256 against options like "DES" and "RC2" that are on offer. That's a good step. Now you get to choose between ECB, CBC, CFB, OFB, CTR. Which is a good idea? Which isn't? The documentation appears to just say "here is a great example of using CBC mode". That example is vulnerable to a padding oracle (uses PKCS#7 and has no form of MAC). From what I'm reading it's left as an exercise to the reader to record the iv somewhere. If you did want a hash, it helpfully suggests MD5 as reasonable. This isn't a great example of crypto engineering.

by buu700 6y ago

traceroute66 6y ago

Agree on the libsodium recommendation. Stanford probably just suffering a little "not invented here" syndrome. Libsodium is a solid crypto library with long history. It is also embedded in PHP,HHVM,Citrine and Factor "out of the box" and has bindings for many other languages, not just Javascript. In my view, any competing crypto library would have to be something super special to outweigh all the pros of libsodium.

hackernewsn00b 6y ago
> Stanford probably just suffering a little "not invented here" syndrome. SJCL predates libsodium.js :)
- thephyber 6y ago
  This appears so. From the SJCL documentation: > An older version of this implementation is available in the public domain, but this one is (c) Emily Stark, Mike Hamburg, Dan Boneh, Stanford University 2008-2010 and BSD-licensed for liability reasons.
jonas21 6y ago
> any competing crypto library would have to be something super special to outweigh all the pros of libsodium. Like interoperating with anything not designed by djb?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

BiteCode_dev 6y ago

SJCL is 6.4KB gzipped, libsodium is 188KB. If one plans to use the lib in the browser, it makes a huge difference. Also, I'm not a crypto expert by any mean, but SJCL seems higher level, and hence, easier to use. Not to mention harder to missuse. Projects like https://0bin.net https://0bin.net have been using it for 7 years, with 500000 visitors in the last few months, so I'd say it's pretty battle tested too. Not nearly has much as libsodium, of course. But I wouldn't discard SJCL, I think it has a place.

buu700 6y ago
That's a fair point, to some extent. If you're specifically looking to perform symmetric encryption on a string with a string-encoded password, then yes, SJCL is easier to use. The documentation is centered around that one simple example, and the library doesn't seem to do a lot else (at least through a high-level API). I also have a problem with NaCl/Sodium forcing users to handle nonces, rather than handling that detail internally by default. Besides that, Sodium isn't particularly more difficult to use than SJCL; the whole point is that it's an easy-to-use high-level interface that's hard to misuse. I would also note that SJCL's defaults are a bit dated (CCM vs GCM, 128-bit vs 256-bit, PBKDF2 vs a memory-hard KDF like scrypt or Argon2). Additionally, being pure JS would raise concerns about side channel attacks more so than WebAssembly (like libsodium.js) or native code (like WebCrypto). I'm sure there are simple use cases where SJCL provides some value, and I'm not saying data and applications that depend on it out in the wild should necessarily be considered already compromised, but I'd struggle to think of a situation where I would consider using it in a new project today, over either libsodium or nothing at all / just TLS.
Thorrez 6y ago
How does it compare to https://tweetnacl.js.org https://tweetnacl.js.org ? That's 7KB minified and gzipped.
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  Never tried it
- 6y ago

arvinsim 6y ago

Hmm I am currently testing out node-forge for encrypting/decrypting AES-256. Would you say that libsodium.js is better?

buu700 6y ago
I would go with libsodium.js (which binds to the native C library in Node.js) if you just need to encrypt/decrypt in general, especially if you anticipate building out other cryptographic features in the future. If you need AES in particular, node-forge is probably fine, although from a quick glance it looks almost identical to Node's built-in crypto API, in which case you could just use that, but they both look pretty inconvenient (excessively low-level) to use directly.
technion 6y ago
I haven't used this, so I went and read the documentation. node-forge is a good example of giving a user too many options in my view. As a developer looking to secure something, you've apparently decided on AES-256 against options like "DES" and "RC2" that are on offer. That's a good step. Now you get to choose between ECB, CBC, CFB, OFB, CTR. Which is a good idea? Which isn't? The documentation appears to just say "here is a great example of using CBC mode". That example is vulnerable to a padding oracle (uses PKCS#7 and has no form of MAC). From what I'm reading it's left as an exercise to the reader to record the iv somewhere. If you did want a hash, it helpfully suggests MD5 as reasonable. This isn't a great example of crypto engineering.