How does cside's AI capabilities differ from Jscrambler's?

Cside uses open source LLMs running on infrastructure it controls meaning there is no opportunity for data to leak to a 3rd party vendor. Jscrambler released limited AI functionality relying on APIs of large AI companies which can use the data for training purposes. Therefore their AI functionality is opt-in only. This concern is circumvented by owning the AI runtime which cside does.

How does cside's hybrid proxy differ from Jscrambler's trap-based detection?

The fundamental difference is prevention versus detection. Jscrambler injects decoy objects and monitoring code into your pages, hoping malicious scripts will interact with these "traps" after they've already loaded. Cside's hybrid proxy intercepts and analyzes scripts before they reach browsers, blocking malicious content at the network level. We prevent attacks from executing, while Jscrambler detects them after they've already been delivered to users.

Can attackers bypass cside's protection like they can with Jscrambler's browser traps?

No, because cside's core analysis happens on our proxy, completely invisible to attackers. sophisticated attackers can easily detect and bypass Jscrambler's traps because the monitoring code runs in the browser where it's visible and analyzable. Attackers can simply ignore the decoy objects or block the callback endpoints. Cside's proxy analysis happens server-side before content reaches browsers, making it invisible and impossible for attackers to detect, study, or circumvent.

What forensic evidence does cside provide compared to Jscrambler's trap alerts?

Jscrambler provides alerts when traps are triggered, but cside captures and archives actions and the complete malicious code that was blocked. This gives you the actual attack payload for forensic analysis rather than just notification that a trap fired. Incident response teams get replay-ready evidence showing exactly how the attack worked, while trap-based systems only provide behavioral observations that may not even fire.

How do compliance requirements compare between cside and Jscrambler?

Cside provides superior PCI DSS compliance with immutable records of every script payload and comprehensive audit trails. Jscrambler's trap-based approach provides behavioral monitoring but lacks the detailed forensic evidence and historical tracking that regulators require. Our approach covers both requirements 6.4.3 and 11.6.1 with the complete documentation that compliance officers need for thorough regulatory reporting.

Why is cside's proactive blocking better than Jscrambler's reactive detection?

Proactive blocking prevents attacks before any user data can be compromised, while reactive detection only alerts you after malicious scripts have already executed and potentially stolen information. Jscrambler's traps may not even fire if attackers design their code to avoid the decoys. Cside ensures malicious scripts never reach browsers, providing guaranteed protection rather than hoping attacks will trigger monitoring systems.

Jscrambler vs cside

This article takes an honest look at the features of Jscrambler Web Page Integrity, another company focussing on client-side security.

Since you’re on the cside website, we acknowledge our bias. That said, we’ve built our case honestly and based our analysis on publicly available information, industry information, and our own or our customers' experiences.

If you want to verify these claims yourself, please navigate to their product page.

Criteria	cside	Jscrambler	Why It Matters	What the Consequences Are
Approaches used	Active client-side detections + gate-keeper + scanner	Static client-side script
Real-time Protection			Attacks can occur between scans or in the excluded data when sampled	Delayed detection = active data breaches
Full Payload Analysis			Ensures deep visibility into malicious behaviors within script code itself, not just its actions.	Threats go unnoticed unless the source is known on a threat feed
Dynamic Threat Detection			Identifies attacks that change based on user, time, location or randomization	Missed detection of targeted attacks
100% Historical Tracking & Forensics			Needed for incident response, auditing, and compliance	Without script contents visibility is restricted to the specified and monitored script actions instead of the raw script contents
Bypass Protection			Stops attackers from circumventing detection methods	Stealthy threats can bypass exposed detection methods
Certainty the Script Seen by User is Monitored			Aligns analysis with what actually executes in the browser	Gaps between what's reviewed and what's actually executed
AI-driven Script Analysis			Detects novel or evolving threats through behavior modeling	Reliance on manual updates, threat feeds or rules = slow and error-prone detection
QSA validated PCI dash			The most reliable way to ensure a solution is PCI compliant is to conduct a thorough audit by an independent QSA	Without QSA validation, you rely entirely on marketing claims, which could result in failing an audit
SOC 2 Type II			Shows consistent operational security controls over time	Lacks verified security control validation, making it a risky vendor
PCI specific UI			An easy interface for quick script review and justification via one click or AI automation	Mundane tasks and manual research on what all the scripts do, which takes hours or days
Cost	Public and predictable	Hidden and inconsistent	Transparent pricing allows teams to budget effectively and make informed decisions	Hidden pricing that varies drastically between customers creates unpredictability and budget uncertainty

What is Jscrambler

Jscrambler is a cybersecurity tool that protects JavaScript code through obfuscation, runtime protection, and anti-tampering techniques.

How Jscrambler works

Jscrambler's core product centers itself around protecting first-party JavaScript code by transforming it through obfuscation. This makes the code more difficult to reverse-engineer or steal. It's main use is to protect companies scripts with sensitive logic in the frontend such as proprietary algorithms, licensing enforcement, or in-browser app logic. However, JS obfuscation is not a silver bullet. Executions in the browser are still leveraging APIs and executing certain actions which can still be monitored regardless of the obfuscation techniques used. There is also a whole community built around deobfuscation tools.

LLM's are increasingly getting better at deobfuscation JavaScript or at the very least contextualizing its actions based on the code itself.

Our own product cside uses LLMs in real-time to analyze script contents both obfuscated and deobfuscated to look for malicious patterns.

For actual client-side executions Jscrambler offers a feature to lock client-side functionality. Their “code locks” features allow developers to restrict where and when the code can run (e.g., on a specific domain or time window).

Their runtime protections aim to detect tampering and debugging, but they are self-contained.

This method most crucially places all detections in the browser, making an ideal sandbox for an attacker to develop an attack that circumvents their detection methods or locks. And in the world of JavaScript, there are 100 ways to get from a to b, so bypasses are common and relying solely on client-side detections is unable to fight off the more invested bad actors.

Jscrambler can not show you the script contents, because it doesn't track script contents at all. This makes it hard to perform any level of forensics on an attack as bad actors often sample their attacks making it hard or even impossible to obtain the malicious script contents after.

Not fully protected

One of the key issues with the Jscrambler client-side approach is that by design, they don't know what they don't catch. Any attack that successfully avoids their client-side hooks goes unseen and undetected making it much harder to improve detection capabilities and giving no ability to perform forensics.

On top of that, the client-side detections run client-side. Making it very easy for a bad actor to find ways to circumvent them. And unfortunately, they do constantly as we explained in our blogpost about bypass methods used in the wild.

Think of playing Minesweeper but with the bombs exposed.

“Bad actors that target large brands will try to reverse engineer what security is present. Client-side security suffers especially badly from this if the detections are solely done client-side. The result is simple: it's like playing minesweeper with the bombs exposed. Client-side security can not solely rely on client-side monitoring.”
— Simon Wijckmans, CEO, cside

How cside goes further

The cside team has substantial experience in client-side security. Throughout our experiences we identified that bad actors are operating at a level of sophistication that takes the upper hand over some security approaches. If the reward is high, any gap in a security detection model is an opportunity for a bad actor.

Given browsers specification limitations for client-side security, we’ve had to get creative which is why we approached client-side security in a unique way.

Direct Mode - Easiest: We check script behaviors in the browser and fetch the scripts on our side. We then verify we got the same script. We don't place ourselves in the path of a script unless you explicitly ask us to. Just one script to add to the site, it takes seconds.
Gatekeeper Mode - Safest: We check script behaviors and cside places itself in the middle between the uncontrolled third-party and the end user - only script you didn't already trust. Just one script to add to the site, it takes seconds.
Scan mode - Fastest: If you can't add a script to the site, cside will scan it. We will use the cside threat intel gathered by thousands of other websites with combined billions of visitors to help secure your site the best you can.

The mix of the above brings us closest to full coverage technically possible today.

As a nice side piece, with some of the approaches we have taken we were able to make websites faster depending on the scripts on the webpage. Placing a solution in the middle only makes things slower if they are already fully optimized, which is often not the case.

With this cside helps companies achieve compliance, whether its security or privacy focussed.

Cside actively contributes to the W3C in the hopes of creating attention to client-side security. Aiming to make adjustments to the browser specification to allow for fully bulletproof client-side security.

At cside, we capture attacks. If you are reading this blogpost, you are likely a sufficiently high value target for a bad actor to invest some level of mental capacity to inspect how your web security works. It is better to be safe and assume a bad actor will attempt to bypass security solutions you use. So use solutions that think a step ahead.