Pros of zphisher

• More comprehensive set of phishing templates (30+)
• Includes a built-in web server for hosting phishing pages
• Regular updates and active maintenance

Cons of zphisher

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to modify
• Requires more dependencies to be installed

Code Comparison

ShellPhish:

if [[ -e sites/$server/ip.txt ]]; then
    rm -rf sites/$server/ip.txt
fi

if [[ -e sites/$server/usernames.txt ]]; then
    rm -rf sites/$server/usernames.txt
fi

zphisher:

if [[ -e $site_dir/ip.txt ]]; then
    rm -rf $site_dir/ip.txt
fi

if [[ -e $site_dir/usernames.txt ]]; then
    rm -rf $site_dir/usernames.txt
fi

Both projects use similar code structures for file management, but zphisher uses variables for directory paths, making it more flexible and easier to maintain. ShellPhish directly references the "sites" directory, which could be less adaptable if the directory structure changes.

Pros of maskphish

• More active development with recent updates
• Includes additional URL masking techniques
• Supports multiple tunneling options (Ngrok, Cloudflared, Localhostrun)

Cons of maskphish

• Less comprehensive documentation
• Fewer customization options for phishing templates
• Requires more dependencies to be installed manually

Code comparison

maskphish:

url_checker() {
    if [ ! "${1//:*}" = http ]; then
        if [ ! "${1//:*}" = https ]; then
            echo -e "\e[31m[!] Invalid URL. Please use http or https.\e[0m"
            exit 1
        fi
    fi
}

ShellPhish:

tunnel_menu() {
    if [[ -e .server/ngrok ]]; then
        echo -e "\n${GREEN}[${WHITE}1${GREEN}]${CYAN} Ngrok"
    else
        echo -e "\n${GREEN}[${WHITE}1${GREEN}]${RED} Ngrok ${YELLOW}[Not Installed]"
    fi
}

Both projects aim to create phishing links, but maskphish focuses more on URL masking techniques, while ShellPhish provides a wider range of pre-built phishing templates. maskphish has seen more recent updates, potentially offering better compatibility with current systems. However, ShellPhish offers more detailed documentation and easier setup for beginners. The code snippets show that maskphish includes URL validation, while ShellPhish focuses on tunneling options presentation.

Pros of AdvPhishing

• More advanced and feature-rich phishing tool
• Includes additional templates and customization options
• Supports multiple tunneling options (Ngrok, Cloudflared, Localtunnel)

Cons of AdvPhishing

• More complex setup and usage
• Larger codebase, potentially harder to maintain
• May require more system resources

Code Comparison

ShellPhish:

#!/bin/bash
# Simple phishing script
echo "Starting ShellPhish..."

AdvPhishing:

<?php
// Advanced phishing functionality
function advancedPhishing() {
    // Complex phishing logic
}

AdvPhishing offers more sophisticated phishing capabilities with its PHP-based approach, while ShellPhish provides a simpler bash-based solution. AdvPhishing's code structure allows for more advanced features and customization, but it may be more challenging for beginners to understand and modify.

Both tools serve similar purposes but cater to different user skill levels and requirements. ShellPhish is more straightforward and easier to use, while AdvPhishing offers more advanced features for experienced users who need additional functionality and customization options.