Mana vs Airgeddon

Pros of Wifiphisher

• More focused on social engineering attacks with customizable phishing pages
• Easier setup and usage for beginners
• Actively maintained with regular updates

Cons of Wifiphisher

• Limited to Wi-Fi attacks compared to the broader feature sets of Mana and Airgeddon
• Less flexibility in customizing attack scenarios

Code Comparison

Wifiphisher (Python):

def start(self):
    self.template = phishinghttp.TemplateManager(self.target_ap_conn)
    self.template.start()
    self.phishinghttp = phishinghttp.SecureHTTPServer((self.ip, self.port), phishinghttp.HTTPRequestHandler)
    self.phishinghttp.serve_forever()

Airgeddon (Bash):

function set_interface_mode() {
    if [ "${1}" = "monitor" ]; then
        ${airmon} start "${interface}" &> /dev/null
    elif [ "${1}" = "managed" ]; then
        ${airmon} stop "${interface}" &> /dev/null
    fi
}

Mana (C):

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
    parse_args(argc, argv);
    setup_sockets();
    start_mana();
    return 0;
}

The code snippets show different implementation approaches: Wifiphisher uses Python for its HTTP server, Airgeddon employs Bash scripting for interface management, and Mana utilizes C for lower-level control. Each tool's code reflects its focus and design philosophy.

Pros of WiFi-Pumpkin

• More comprehensive GUI interface for easier use
• Supports a wider range of attack vectors and plugins
• Active development with frequent updates

Cons of WiFi-Pumpkin

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• May require more system resources compared to lighter alternatives
• Less focus on specific rogue AP attacks compared to MANA

Code Comparison

MANA (start.sh):

#!/bin/bash
source config.ini
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $internet -j MASQUERADE
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward

airgeddon (airgeddon.sh):

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -u
if [ -f "${scriptfolder}${rc_file}" ]; then
    source "${scriptfolder}${rc_file}"
fi

WiFi-Pumpkin (core/widgets/default/plugins/dns_spoof.py):

from core.servers.proxy.package.ProxyMode import ProxyMode
from core.utility.collection import SettingsINI
from plugins.extension.base import BasePumpkin
import core.utility.constants as C

Pros of eaphammer

• Focused specifically on EAP-based attacks, providing specialized tools for this attack vector
• Includes advanced features like hostile portal attacks and indirect wireless pivots
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of eaphammer

• More limited in scope compared to the broader feature sets of mana and airgeddon
• Steeper learning curve for users not familiar with EAP-based attacks
• Less extensive documentation compared to airgeddon

Code Comparison

eaphammer (Python):

def hostile_portal():
    print("[*] Launching hostile portal attack...")
    # Implementation details

mana (Bash):

start_mana() {
    echo "Starting MANA..."
    # Configuration and startup commands
}

airgeddon (Bash):

function start_attack() {
    echo -e "${yellow_color}Starting attack...${normal_color}"
    # Attack execution logic
}

Summary

While eaphammer excels in EAP-based attacks with specialized features, mana and airgeddon offer broader functionality for wireless network auditing. eaphammer's focused approach may be advantageous for specific scenarios, but it lacks the versatility of the other tools. The code snippets highlight the different languages and approaches used by each project, with eaphammer using Python for more complex operations, while mana and airgeddon rely on Bash scripting for their functionality.

Pros of Fluxion

• More focused on Wi-Fi security auditing with a user-friendly interface
• Regularly updated with new features and bug fixes
• Supports multiple languages for wider accessibility

Cons of Fluxion

• Limited to Wi-Fi attacks, less versatile than Mana or Airgeddon
• Requires more dependencies and setup compared to simpler tools
• May trigger antivirus software due to its nature

Code Comparison

Fluxion (bash):

if [ "$WIFI_MONITOR" != "" ]; then
    xterm $HOLD -title "Deauthenticating all clients on $ESSID" $TOPRIGHT -bg "#000000" -fg "#FF0009" -e aireplay-ng --deauth $DEAUTHTIME -a $BSSID $WIFI_MONITOR &
fi

Airgeddon (bash):

function set_chipset() {
    debug_print

    if [ "${current_iface}" = "" ]; then
        echo_error "${current_iface_not_set}"
        return 1
    fi

Mana (python):

def start_ap(self, ssid, channel, enc, passphrase):
    self.ssid = ssid
    self.channel = channel
    self.enc = enc
    self.passphrase = passphrase
    self.start()

Pros of airgeddon

• More comprehensive wireless auditing toolkit with a wider range of attack options
• Active development and frequent updates
• User-friendly interface with menu-driven options

Cons of airgeddon

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• May require additional dependencies for full functionality
• Less focused on specific attack scenarios compared to mana

Code Comparison

airgeddon:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
...
function initialize_script_settings() {
    debug_mode=0
    language="ENGLISH"
    ...
}

mana:

#!/usr/bin/env python
...
def start_ap():
    os.system("ifconfig %s up" % iface)
    os.system("airbase-ng -e '%s' -c %s %s &" % (essid, channel, iface))
    ...

Both projects use scripting languages (Bash for airgeddon, Python for mana) to automate wireless network operations. airgeddon's code structure appears more modular with defined functions, while mana's code is more straightforward with direct system commands.

airgeddon offers a more extensive set of features for wireless auditing, making it suitable for a wider range of scenarios. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity. mana, on the other hand, focuses on specific attack vectors, making it easier to use for targeted operations but less versatile overall.

Pros of Wifite2

• Simpler and more straightforward to use, focusing on automated WiFi auditing
• Regularly updated with bug fixes and new features
• Supports a wide range of wireless attacks and tools

Cons of Wifite2

• Less comprehensive than Mana or Airgeddon for advanced network attacks
• Limited customization options compared to the other tools
• Primarily focused on WiFi, lacking some broader network manipulation features

Code Comparison

Wifite2 (Python):

def crack_handshake(handshake, wordlist, essid=None, show_command=False):
    # Crack logic here

Airgeddon (Bash):

function set_interface_mode() {
    # Interface mode setting logic
}

Mana (C):

int start_mana(const char *interface, const char *ssid) {
    // Mana startup logic
}

Key Differences

Wifite2 is a Python-based tool focused on automating WiFi auditing tasks. It's user-friendly but less flexible than Airgeddon or Mana. Airgeddon, written in Bash, offers a more comprehensive suite of wireless attack tools with an interactive menu system. Mana, primarily in C, specializes in creating sophisticated rogue access points and man-in-the-middle attacks.

While Wifite2 excels in quick WiFi assessments, Airgeddon provides a broader range of network attack options, and Mana offers advanced capabilities for creating deceptive network environments. The choice between these tools depends on the specific requirements of the network security assessment or penetration testing scenario.