<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Solidstart on CSP Guide</title>
    <link>https://csp-guide.com/tags/solidstart/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Solidstart on CSP Guide</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://csp-guide.com/tags/solidstart/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>CSP for SolidJS vs SolidStart: Pros, Cons, and Setup</title>
      <link>https://csp-guide.com/posts/csp-for-solidjs-and-solidstart/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://csp-guide.com/posts/csp-for-solidjs-and-solidstart/</guid>
      
      <description>&lt;p&gt;SolidJS and SolidStart sit close together, but CSP feels very different depending on which one you’re shipping.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If you’re building a plain SolidJS SPA with Vite, CSP is mostly about locking down your static assets, avoiding inline script mistakes, and dealing with third-party analytics. If you’re building with SolidStart, CSP becomes a runtime concern too: SSR, streaming, nonce propagation, server headers, and hydration all enter the picture.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That difference matters a lot. I’ve seen teams assume “we added a CSP header” and then discover the app only works because &lt;code&gt;unsafe-inline&lt;/code&gt; quietly stayed enabled. That’s not a serious policy. That’s a polite suggestion.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
