Differences (features or ideal use cases) comparing with SecKit

Created on 23 July 2024, 9 months ago
Updated 20 August 2024, 8 months ago

We are trying to identify the current "best" security module(s) and best practices, including various header hardening options, for a template to protect sites.

Is there any current comparison of features and intended/ideal use cases between this module and Security Kit β†’ ?

I found the older issue " Compatibility with SecKit β†’ " - but that doesn't really seem to break down why one would choose to use one over the other.

πŸ’¬ Support request
Status

Fixed

Version

2.0

Component

Documentation

Created by

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States w01f

Live updates comments and jobs are added and updated live.
Sign in to follow issues

Comments & Activities

  • Issue created by @w01f
  • πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦Canada gapple

    The two modules are not incompatible, provided the CSP settings in Seckit are disabled (and CSP module will add a warning to the site status page if so), since Seckit offers other features than setting a CSP header.

    Seckit offers a single, static, policy for a site defined in strings.

    - CSP's configuration is structured and granular, with concurrent reported and enforced policies.
    - CSP provides an API for dynamic alterations, which it uses to automatically add necessary sources according to a site's library definitions.
    - other modules already integrate with CSP's API, to ensure a site's policy allows their functionality without a site builder needing to make any config changes.
    - helper methods and services are available to ensure devs safely alter policies
    - integrations are available for Reporting API module, Report-URI.com, Sentry...

    See also 🌱 Deprecate / Remove Content Security Policy configuration in favour of Content Security Policy module Active

  • Status changed to Fixed 8 months ago
  • Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

Production build 0.71.5 2024