comment on

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

In reply to Re: Mojolicious vs Dancer (security-wise)? by moritz
in thread Mojolicious vs Dancer (security-wise)? by Anonymous Monk

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks