惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
美团技术团队
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
月光博客
月光博客
J
Java Code Geeks
Jina AI
Jina AI
罗磊的独立博客
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
S
SegmentFault 最新的问题
D
DataBreaches.Net
博客园 - 叶小钗
腾讯CDC
freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
Google DeepMind News
Google DeepMind News
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
B
Blog
V
Visual Studio Blog
雷峰网
雷峰网
博客园 - 【当耐特】
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
Engineering at Meta
Engineering at Meta
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报

DEV Community

Authentication Security Deep Dive: From Brute Force to Salted Hashing (With Java Examples) Why AI Systems Don’t Fail — They Drift Spilling beans for how i learn for exam😁"Reinforcement Learning Cheat Sheet" I Replaced Chrome with Safari for AI Browser Automation. Here's What Broke (and What Finally Worked) How Python Borrows Other People's Work The $40 Architecture: Processing 1 Billion API Requests with 99.99% Uptime Vibe Coding: A Workflow Guide (From Zero to SaaS) Most webhook security guides protect the wrong side. The scary part is delivery. Headless CMS for TanStack Start: Build a Blog with Cosmic EU Age Verification App "Hacked in 2 Minutes" — What Actually Happened Comfy Cloud’s delete function does not actually remove files Running AI Models on GPU Cloud Servers: A Beginner Guide Event-driven media intelligence with AWS Step Functions and Bedrock I scored 500 AI prompts across 8 quality dimensions — here's what broke How to Call Google Gemini API from Next.js (Free Tier, No Backend Needed) The Portal Protocol: Reclaiming Human Connection in the Age of AI How to Fix Your Team's Scattered Knowledge Problem With a Self-Hosted Forum Intro to tc Cloud Functors: A Graph-First Mental Model for the Modern Cloud Designing Multi-Tenant Backends With Both Ownership and Team Access I Built a Neumorphic CSS Library with 77+ Components — Here's What I Learned PostgreSQL Performance Optimization: Why Connection Pooling Is Critical at Scale Cómo construí un SaaS multi-rubro para gestionar expensas en Argentina con FastAPI + Vue 3 🚀 I Built an Ethical Hacking Scanner Tool – Open Source Project I Replaced /usage and /context in Claude Code With a Single Statusline A Pythonic Way to Handle Emails (IMAP/SMTP) with Auto-Discovery and AI-Ready Design I Collected 8.9 Million Polymarket Price Points — Here's What I Found About How Markets Really Move EcoTrack AI — Carbon Footprint Tracker & Dashboard Everyone's Using AI. No One Agrees How. 5 self-hosted ebook managers worth trying in 2026 Building Your First AI Agent with LangChain: From Chatbot to Autonomous Assistant
I Benchmarked 17 ESLint Security Plugins. Only One Found ...
Ofri Peretz · 2026-05-25 · via DEV Community

Skip to: Full Results | Category Breakdown | The Leaderboard | Methodology

TL;DR

I built a benchmark suite with 40 vulnerable code patterns across 14 CWE categories and 38 verified-safe patterns. Then I ran 17 ESLint plugins against them — every major security, quality, and framework plugin in the ecosystem.

One plugin achieved a perfect score. Most others detected under 50% of patterns.

Rank Plugin Rules TP FP F1 Score
🥇 Interlace Ecosystem 201 40/40 0 100.0%
🥈 eslint-plugin-sonarjs 269 14/40 5 47.5%
🥉 eslint-plugin-unicorn 144 22/40 23 51.8%
4 @microsoft/eslint-plugin-sdl 17 4/40 1 17.8%
5 eslint-plugin-security † 13 0/40 0 0% (crash)

eslint-plugin-security crashes on ESLint 9.39.2 with TypeError: context.getScope is not a function, so the bench records 0 detections on the standard test environment. On ESLint 8.57.0 it detects 11/40 (recall 27.5%) but with an equal number of false positives (a 1:1 TP:FP ratio).

The incumbent security plugin — eslint-plugin-security, with 1.5M+ weekly downloads — detects zero vulnerabilities on modern ESLint because it hasn't been updated for the flat-config API.


Why This Matters

Most Node.js teams rely on a security linter they've never benchmarked. They install eslint-plugin-security or enable SonarJS security rules and assume they're covered.

They're not.

The data shows a massive detection gap across the entire ecosystem. Plugins that claim security coverage miss 60–100% of standard vulnerability patterns. And some of the highest-downloaded plugins aren't security tools at all — they detected zero issues from our suite.

This isn't theoretical. These are OWASP Top 10 patterns that ship to production every day.


The Benchmark Suite

Test Environment

Component Version
Node.js v20.19.5
ESLint 9.39.2
Platform macOS (darwin/arm64)
Date February 8, 2026

Vulnerable Patterns (40 cases, 14 CWE categories)

Category Cases CWEs Real-World Impact
SQL Injection 4 CWE-89 Data exfiltration, auth bypass
Command Injection 4 CWE-78 Remote code execution
Path Traversal 4 CWE-22 Arbitrary file read/write
Hardcoded Credentials 4 CWE-798 Account takeover
JWT Vulnerabilities 3 CWE-757, CWE-347 Auth bypass
XSS / Code Execution 4 CWE-79, CWE-94 Session hijack, RCE
Prototype Pollution 3 CWE-1321 DoS, property injection
Insecure Randomness 2 CWE-330 Predictable tokens
Weak Cryptography 3 CWE-328, CWE-327 Credential exposure
Timing Attacks 2 CWE-208 Secret extraction
NoSQL Injection 2 CWE-943 Data exfiltration
SSRF 2 CWE-918 Internal network access
Open Redirect 1 CWE-601 Phishing
ReDoS 2 CWE-1333 Denial of service

Safe Patterns (38 cases)

These are correctly-implemented secure patterns that should NOT trigger warnings:

  • Parameterized SQL queries (Prisma, TypeORM, pg)
  • execFile with validated arguments
  • path.resolve with startsWith validation
  • Environment variables for credentials
  • JWT with explicit algorithm restriction
  • DOMPurify sanitization
  • Allowlist validation before object access
  • crypto.randomBytes for tokens
  • crypto.timingSafeEqual for comparisons
  • URL allowlists for SSRF prevention

Any warnings on these patterns are false positives — noise that creates alert fatigue and trains developers to ignore real issues.


The Results

The Leaderboard

Plugin download counts cited throughout this article are weekly figures snapshotted on 2026-02-08 from npm-stat.com.

Rank Plugin Version Rules TP FP FN Precision Recall F1
🥇 Interlace Ecosystem 3.0.2 201 40 0 0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
🥈 eslint-plugin-sonarjs 3.0.6 269 14 5 26 73.7% 35.0% 47.5%
🥉 eslint-plugin-unicorn 62.0.0 144 22 23 18 48.9% 55.0% 51.8%
4 @microsoft/eslint-plugin-sdl 1.1.0 17 4 1 36 80.0% 10.0% 17.8%
5 eslint-plugin-no-secrets 2.2.1 2 2 0 38 100.0% 5.0% 9.5%
6 eslint-plugin-no-unsanitized 4.1.4 2 2 1 38 66.7% 5.0% 9.3%
7 eslint-plugin-n 17.23.2 41 2 3 38 40.0% 5.0% 8.9%
8 eslint-plugin-regexp 3.0.0 78 1 2 39 33.3% 2.5% 4.7%
9 eslint-plugin-security † 2.1.1 13 0 0 40 0.0% 0.0%
10 eslint-plugin-react 7.37.5 103 0 0 40 0.0% 0.0%
11 eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y 6.10.2 39 0 0 40 0.0% 0.0%
12 eslint-plugin-import 2.32.0 44 0 0 40 0.0% 0.0%
13 eslint-plugin-promise 7.2.1 13 0 0 40 0.0% 0.0%
14 eslint-plugin-jest 29.12.2 71 0 0 40 0.0% 0.0%
15 eslint-plugin-vue 10.7.0 250 0 0 40 0.0% 0.0%
16 @angular-eslint/eslint-plugin 21.2.0 48 0 0 40 0.0% 0.0%

Note: eslint-plugin-jsdoc (38 TP / 37 FP / F1=66.1%) was excluded from the leaderboard. Its detections are incidental — it flags every function missing JSDoc, not security issues. A 97.4% false positive rate is unusable for security.

Visual Detection Rates

Vulnerable Code Detections (out of 40 patterns):

Interlace Ecosystem:       ████████████████████████████████████████  40 (100%)
eslint-plugin-unicorn:     ██████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░  22 (55%)
eslint-plugin-sonarjs:     ██████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░  14 (35%)
@microsoft/eslint-plugin:  ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░   4 (10%)
eslint-plugin-security:    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░   0 (0%)


The plugins behind "Interlace Ecosystem"

The "Interlace Ecosystem" row in the leaderboard is the combined output of 10 ESLint plugins running together against the same fixture suite — 201 rules in total:

eslint-plugin-secure-coding · eslint-plugin-node-security · eslint-plugin-browser-security · eslint-plugin-pg · eslint-plugin-jwt · eslint-plugin-mongodb-security · eslint-plugin-vercel-ai-security · eslint-plugin-lambda-security · eslint-plugin-express-security · eslint-plugin-nestjs-security

Per-plugin rule counts and focus areas are in Specialization vs. one-size-fits-all below.


The Security Plugins: Deep Dive

eslint-plugin-security (1.5M+ downloads) — BROKEN

F1 Score: 0% | Zero detections

The most widely-installed ESLint security plugin detected nothing. It crashes on ESLint 9 with:

TypeError: context.getScope is not a function
Rule: "security/detect-child-process"

This is due to the deprecated context.getScope() API removed in ESLint 9. The plugin hasn't been updated since 2024. If you're using ESLint 9 with flat config, this plugin provides zero security coverage.

📖 Deep dive: eslint-plugin-security Is Abandoned

eslint-plugin-sonarjs (3M+ downloads) — 35% Recall

F1 Score: 47.5% | 14 detected, 26 missed, 5 false positives

SonarJS found issues across a few categories but missed the majority:

Category SonarJS What It Missed
SQL Injection 2/4 Template literal patterns
Command Injection 2/4 execSync, spawn with shell
XSS 2/4 document.write, new Function
Hardcoded Credentials 2/4 AWS keys, JWT secrets
Path Traversal 0/4 ❌ All
JWT 0/3 ❌ All
Timing Attacks 0/2 ❌ All
NoSQL Injection 0/2 ❌ All
SSRF 0/2 ❌ All

Despite having 269 rules (the most of any plugin tested), SonarJS missed 65% of vulnerabilities. Many of its rules target code quality, not security.

📖 Deep dive: SonarJS vs Interlace: 269 Rules, 65% Missed

@microsoft/eslint-plugin-sdl — 10% Recall

F1 Score: 17.8% | 4 detected, 36 missed, 1 false positive

Microsoft's SDL (Security Development Lifecycle) plugin found XSS via innerHTML/document.write and eval patterns, but missed everything else. Its 17 rules focus narrowly on browser-side injection.

Category Microsoft SDL
XSS 2/4 ✅
Code Execution 2/4 ⚠️
Everything else 0/32 ❌

📖 Deep dive: Microsoft SDL vs Interlace: Enterprise Security Benchmark

eslint-plugin-no-secrets — Narrow But Precise

F1 Score: 9.5% | 2 detected, 0 false positives

Only 2 rules, but they do their job — detecting hardcoded secrets with zero false positives. Good as a supplement, but not a security strategy.

eslint-plugin-no-unsanitized (Mozilla) — DOM XSS Only

F1 Score: 9.3% | 2 detected, 1 false positive

Detects innerHTML and insertAdjacentHTML DOM sinks. Cannot recognize DOMPurify sanitization (1 FP). Useful for browser projects but covers only 2 of 14 categories.


The Non-Security Plugins: Confirmed Gaps

These widely-installed plugins are not security tools, confirmed by zero detections:

Plugin Downloads Purpose Security Detections
eslint-plugin-react 17M+ React patterns 0
eslint-plugin-import 40M+ Module resolution 0
eslint-plugin-promise 10M+ Promise patterns 0
eslint-plugin-jest 14M+ Jest testing 0
eslint-plugin-vue 7M+ Vue.js 0
@angular-eslint 2.25M+ Angular 0
eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y 14M+ Accessibility 0

These are excellent tools for their intended purpose. But if your security posture relies on them, you have zero coverage.


Category-by-Category Breakdown

Category Interlace SonarJS MS SDL Security no-unsanitized no-secrets
SQL Injection (4) ✅ 4/4 ⚠️ 2/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4
Command Injection (4) ✅ 4/4 ⚠️ 2/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4
Path Traversal (4) ✅ 4/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4
Hardcoded Credentials (4) ✅ 4/4 ⚠️ 2/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4 ❌ 0/4 ⚠️ 2/4
JWT (3) ✅ 3/3 ❌ 0/3 ❌ 0/3 ❌ 0/3 ❌ 0/3 ❌ 0/3
XSS / eval (4) ✅ 4/4 ⚠️ 2/4 ⚠️ 2/4 ❌ 0/4 ⚠️ 2/4 ❌ 0/4
Prototype Pollution (3) ✅ 3/3 ⚠️ 2/3 ❌ 0/3 ❌ 0/3 ❌ 0/3 ❌ 0/3
Insecure Random (2) ✅ 2/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2
Weak Crypto (3) ✅ 3/3 ⚠️ 2/3 ❌ 0/3 ❌ 0/3 ❌ 0/3 ❌ 0/3
Timing Attacks (2) ✅ 2/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2
NoSQL Injection (2) ✅ 2/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2
SSRF (2) ✅ 2/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2
Open Redirect (1) ✅ 1/1 ❌ 0/1 ❌ 0/1 ❌ 0/1 ❌ 0/1 ❌ 0/1
ReDoS (2) ✅ 2/2 ⚠️ 1/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2 ❌ 0/2
TOTAL 40/40 13/40 2/40 0/40 2/40 2/40

Specialization vs. one-size-fits-all

The reason Interlace achieves 100% coverage is specialization. Instead of one monolithic plugin trying to cover everything, the ecosystem uses 10 purpose-built plugins:

Plugin Focus Rules
eslint-plugin-secure-coding Core OWASP patterns 23
eslint-plugin-node-security fs, child_process, vm, weak crypto, randomness 42
eslint-plugin-browser-security XSS, CORS, CSP 45
eslint-plugin-pg SQL injection, connection safety 13
eslint-plugin-jwt Algorithm confusion, token safety 13
eslint-plugin-mongodb-security NoSQL injection, operator injection 16
eslint-plugin-vercel-ai-security Prompt injection, output validation 19
eslint-plugin-lambda-security IAM, cold starts, secrets 14
eslint-plugin-express-security Helmet, CORS, sessions 10
eslint-plugin-nestjs-security Guards, pipes, decorators 6

Crypto rules (weak algorithms, insecure randomness) were consolidated into eslint-plugin-node-security on 2026-05-10. The previously separate eslint-plugin-crypto package is deprecated and should not be installed.

Each plugin is maintained by domain experts and updated independently. A JWT vulnerability doesn't require updating the SQL injection rules.


What This Means For Your Team

The Math

If your codebase has 100 potentially vulnerable patterns:

Your Current Stack Detected Shipped to Production
eslint-plugin-security 0 100 vulnerabilities
eslint-plugin-sonarjs 35 65 vulnerabilities
@microsoft/eslint-plugin-sdl 10 90 vulnerabilities
Interlace Ecosystem 100 0 vulnerabilities

The False Positive Tax

False positives create alert fatigue — developers learn to ignore security warnings:

Plugin FP Rate Developer Impact
eslint-plugin-unicorn 51.1% Every other warning is noise
eslint-plugin-sonarjs 26.3% 1 in 4 is noise
Interlace 0% Every warning is actionable

Methodology

Fixture Design

All fixtures are:

  • Realistic: Patterns from actual production codebases, not contrived examples
  • Annotated: Each pattern includes its CWE, expected severity, and detection requirement
  • Reproducible: Published in the open-source benchmark suite

Metrics

Metric Formula What It Measures
True Positive (TP) Vulnerability detected Correct detection
False Positive (FP) Safe code flagged Noise / alert fatigue
False Negative (FN) Vulnerability missed Security gap
Precision TP / (TP + FP) Signal-to-noise ratio
Recall TP / (TP + FN) Coverage completeness
F1 Score 2 × (P × R) / (P + R) Overall accuracy balance

Reproducibility

git clone https://github.com/ofri-peretz/eslint-benchmark-suite
cd eslint-benchmark-suite
npm install
npm run benchmark:fn-fp

Every claim in this article can be independently verified.


Migrate in 60 Seconds

npm install -D eslint-plugin-secure-coding eslint-plugin-node-security \
  eslint-plugin-browser-security \
  eslint-plugin-pg eslint-plugin-jwt eslint-plugin-mongodb-security

// eslint.config.js
import secureCoding from "eslint-plugin-secure-coding";
import nodeSecurity from "eslint-plugin-node-security";
import browserSecurity from "eslint-plugin-browser-security";

export default [
  secureCoding.configs.recommended,
  nodeSecurity.configs.recommended,
  browserSecurity.configs.recommended,
];

Run ESLint. See what you've been missing.


Related deep dives in this series

This article is the ecosystem overview. For detailed per-plugin comparisons, see:


Explore the Full Ecosystem

201 security rules. 10 specialized plugins. 100% OWASP Top 10 coverage.

The Interlace ESLint Ecosystem provides comprehensive security static analysis for modern Node.js applications.

📖 Documentation | ⭐ GitHub | 📦 NPM


Build Securely.

I'm Ofri Peretz, a Security Engineering Leader and the architect of the Interlace Ecosystem. I build static analysis standards that automate security and performance for Node.js fleets at scale.

ofriperetz.dev | LinkedIn | GitHub