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?
In reply to Re: Mojolicious vs Dancer (security-wise)?
by moritz
in thread Mojolicious vs Dancer (security-wise)?
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |