Re: Mojolicious vs Dancer (security-wise)?

Track record of incidents?

Dancer: none, mojolicious: five in the CVE database. But that might just mean that somebody tracks the mojolicious bugs and nobody tracks the Dancer bugs in CVE.

Which framework advocates more defensive/secure programming and stricter default template language?

Both allow you to use arbitrary template engines. Mojo::Template makes it easier to interpolate escaped strings <%= ... %> than unescaped strings <%== ... %>. I don't know much about Dancer in this regard.

Does the framework work under strict, warnings, strictures, taint mode, setuid setup?

Both work with strinctures. In fact Mojolicious::Lite enables them by default.

(By default?) protection against: XSS, XSRF, SQL injection?

Mojolicious doesn't generate HTML for you by default, so there are neither vulnerabilities nor safeguards against XSRF.

default admin user/password

You're kidding, aren't you?

Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed

Comment on Re: Mojolicious vs Dancer (security-wise)? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Mojolicious vs Dancer (security-wise)? by Anonymous Monk on Sep 21, 2012 at 07:11 UTC
Just to add something about the XSS, XSRF attacks. There is a Plack middleware (https://metacpan.org/module/Plack::Middleware::CSRFBlock) which could be used to all psgi compliant frameworks	[reply]
Re^2: Mojolicious vs Dancer (security-wise)? by Anonymous Monk on Jan 24, 2013 at 01:14 UTC
Dancer had the exact same directory traversal bug as Mojolicious (CVE-2011-1589).	[reply]


Do you know where your variables are?
	PerlMonks