JavaScript framework security comparison¶
React
Security strengths:
JSX automatically escapes content, preventing XSS by default
Large ecosystem with security-focused tools (ESLint plugins, React-specific CSP)
Virtual DOM reduces direct DOM manipulation risks
Weaknesses & considerations:
DangerouslySetInnerHTML can reintroduce XSS if misused
Client-side state management requires anti-CSRF measures
Server-side rendering (Next.js) needs careful XSS/CSRF hardening
Key security features:
Strict Content Security Policy (CSP) support
Context API for secure prop drilling
Angular
Security strengths:
Built-in XSS protection (automatic sanitization of bindings)
TypeScript-first reduces injection risks
Ahead-of-Time (AOT) compilation eliminates template injection risks
Weaknesses & considerations:
Larger attack surface (complex framework, more built-in features)
Dependency injection system requires careful configuration
Key security features:
DOM sanitizer with customizable whitelists
Built-in CSRF protection (HttpClient)
Vue
Security strengths:
Templates auto-escape HTML (similar to React’s JSX)
Smaller core = reduced attack surface
Excellent security documentation with explicit warnings
Weaknesses & considerations:
v-html directive can introduce XSS (like React’s dangerouslySetInnerHTML)
Less opinionated than Angular → more security configuration left to developers
Key security features:
Scoped styles prevent CSS injection
Composition API encourages secure state management
Svelte
Security strengths:
No virtual DOM → fewer runtime attack vectors
Compiles to vanilla JS → minimal framework footprint
Automatic CSS scoping
Weaknesses & considerations:
Young ecosystem → fewer battle-tested security tools
{@html} tag requires manual XSS prevention
Key security features:
Built-in CSP compatibility
Minimal runtime reduces supply chain risks
Critical security comparison table¶
Framework |
XSS Protection |
CSRF Defaults |
SSR Risks |
Supply Chain Risk |
Learning Curve |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
React |
Good (JSX escape) |
Manual setup |
High (Next.js hydration) |
High (large ecosystem) |
Moderate |
Angular |
Excellent (auto-sanitize) |
Built-in HttpClient |
Medium |
Medium |
Steep |
Vue |
Good (template escape) |
Manual setup |
Medium (Nuxt.js) |
Medium |
Gentle |
Svelte |
Manual ({@html} risk) |
Manual setup |
Low (SvelteKit) |
Low (small core) |
Easy |
Framework-specific threats¶
React:
Prop drilling → accidental secret leakage
Client-side routing → auth state synchronization
Angular:
Template injection via unsanitized user input
Dependency injection abuse
Vue:
v-html misuse → DOM XSS
Pinia/Vuex state sanitization
Svelte:
{@html} tag → requires manual sanitization
Store mutations → lack of type enforcement
Universal JavaScript security risks¶
NPM dependencies (all frameworks are vulnerable to supply chain attacks)
Server-side rendering (hydration attacks in Next/Nuxt/SvelteKit)
Authentication state management (JWT storage, CSRF tokens)
Recommendations by Use Case¶
Enterprise apps → Angular (built-in protections)
Startups/rapid dev → Vue (good balance)
Complex SPAs → React (with strict CSP)
Performance-critical → Svelte (low attack surface)
All frameworks require:
Regular npm audit + Snyk scans
Security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options)
Input validation/sanitization
Tools for framework security¶
React: eslint-plugin-react-security
Angular: @angular/cli built-in audits
Vue: vue-security ESLint plugin
Svelte: svelte-check with security rules