Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark and explain what is tested, compared, and some pros/cons of different approaches.

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark compares two HTML sanitization libraries: DOMPurify (version 2.3.3) and sanitize-html (version 1.27.5).

Script Preparation Code

The script preparation code includes links to the required JavaScript files for both libraries:

• sanitize-html: https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/sanitize-html/1.27.5/sanitize-html.min.js
• DOMPurify: https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dompurify/2.3.3/purify.min.js

Individual Test Cases

There are two test cases:

Test Case 1: DOMPurify

The benchmark definition for this test case is:

const testString = `\r\n<b>Welcome to safeland</b><br>\r\n<a href='javascript:alert(1)'>This is fun</a><br>\r\n<img src=x onerror=console.log(1)>\r\n`\r\nconst result = DOMPurify.sanitize(testString);

This test case uses the DOMPurify library to sanitize a malicious HTML string. The input string contains:

• A <b> tag with a closing </b> tag
• An <a> tag with a href attribute that executes a JavaScript alert
• An <img> tag with an src attribute set to x, which is a deliberate invalid value, and an onerror event handler that logs a message to the console

The test case checks how quickly the DOMPurify.sanitize() method can process this malicious input.

Test Case 2: Sanitize HTML

The benchmark definition for this test case is:

const testString = `\r\n<b>Welcome to safeland</b><br>\r\n<a href='javascript:alert(1)'>This is fun</a><br>\r\n<img src=x onerror=console.log(1)>\r\n`\r\nconst result = sanitizeHtml(testString);

This test case uses the sanitize-html library to sanitize the same malicious HTML string. The input string is identical to the previous test case.

Pros and Cons of Different Approaches

Both libraries aim to remove malicious characters from the input HTML string, preventing XSS attacks. Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

• DOMPurify: Pros:
  • Easy to use: simply pass the input HTML string to DOMPurify.sanitize()
  • Fast: optimized for performance Cons:
  • May not handle all edge cases (e.g., nested tags, complex attribute values)
  • Can be less accurate than other libraries in detecting certain types of attacks
• sanitize-html: Pros:
  • More comprehensive: handles a wide range of HTML elements and attributes
  • More accurate: detects more complex attacks and edge cases Cons:
  • May be slower than DOMPurify due to its more extensive sanitization logic
  • Requires more configuration options

Other Considerations

• Library Purpose: Both libraries are designed to sanitize HTML input, preventing cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks. However, they differ in their approach and accuracy.
• Special JS Feature: None mentioned explicitly.

Alternatives

If you're looking for alternative HTML sanitization libraries, consider:

• html-minifier: a fast and lightweight library that minimizes HTML while removing malicious characters
• js-sanitizer: a more comprehensive library that detects a wide range of attacks and offers customization options

Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific requirements and performance needs.