HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
OWASP
CheatSheetSeries
JavaScript2019–2025
OWASP / CheatSheetSeries

CheatSheetSeries

The OWASP Cheat Sheet Series was created to provide a concise collection of high value information on specific application security topics.

14Distinct people
20Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
34KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The OWASP Cheat Sheet Series was created to provide a concise collection of high value information on specific application security topics.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year20 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2019-03-03 04:56:18 UTC to 2025-12-22 12:06:57 UTC.

0369122019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 11 mentions; 1 submissions, 10 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC11110
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505

What Hacker News says

20 sources
Again, the maintainer eventually came around. Our confusion might be due to the fact that an erroneous PR (by seemingly an AI-wielding student...) was somehow recently accepted that completely reverted the changes we collectively worked on, which effectively made Fetch Metadata a full solution. So, it is back to showing as defense in depth. I've raised an issue about it, which wouldn't have happened if I didn't see your article! Here's the previous language: > If your software targets only modern browsers, you may rely on [Fetch Metadata headers](#fetch-metadata-headers) together with the fallback options described below to block cross-site state-changing requests We then detailed some fallbacks (eg Origin header). Full text can be viewed in the original PR https://github.com/OWASP/CheatSheetSeries/pull/1875 or https://github.com/OWASP/Ch
Read the rest
eatSheetSeries/blob/7fc3e6b8fde65... If after reading that you still think that Fetch Metadata is not a viable full solution, I'd be curious to know why - the goal of that PR (and the preceding discussion that I instigated) was to upgrade it from Defense in Depth to Full (even if slightly less full than tokens, due to the possible need for some fallbacks).
In CSRF protection without tokens or hidden form fields
Indeed, this is the canonical way of avoiding CSRF (= XSRF) attacks. I intentionally only explained the header method because I didn't want to confuse readers with another concept, and because it's a really nice example to explain CORS. https://github.com/OWASP/CheatSheetSeries/blob/master/cheats... is probably one of the best documents discussing this, including the drawbacks of the header method that I used (and warned against) in my example: https://github.com/OWASP/CheatSheetSeries/blob/master/cheats...
In Developers don't understand CORS
I gave this code a quick skim and it seems reasonably well thought out and I wish I'd seen it before I rolled my own at work. There are numerous security flaws that one can accidentally introduce with SAML and it seems you've avoided the obvious ones at the very least (i.e. not checking there's only a single assertion, etc). Just in case you weren't aware of it, I found this page very helpful when developing mine: https://github.com/OWASP/CheatSheetSeries/blob/master/cheats...
In Ask HN: A good way to support SSO in bootstrapped SaaS?

Showing the 15 most recent of 20 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.