Pros of Mimikatz

• More powerful and versatile for Windows credential extraction
• Supports a wider range of attack techniques (e.g., Pass-the-Hash, Golden Ticket)
• Actively maintained with frequent updates

Cons of Mimikatz

• Windows-specific, limiting cross-platform usage
• More likely to be flagged by antivirus software due to its popularity
• Requires administrative privileges for most operations

Code Comparison

Mimikatz (C):

BOOL WINAPI sekurlsa::AcquireKeys(PKIWI_BCRYPT_KEY_DATA KeyData)
{
    BOOL status = FALSE;
    NTSTATUS ntStatus;
    ULONG cbResult;

LaZagne (Python):

def run(self):
    pwd_found = []
    for root, dirs, files in os.walk(constant.profile['APPDATA']):
        for file in files:
            if file.startswith('Login Data'):

Mimikatz is written in C and focuses on low-level Windows API interactions, while LaZagne is written in Python and uses a more high-level, cross-platform approach to password recovery. Mimikatz offers more advanced techniques for Windows systems, whereas LaZagne provides broader support for various applications and operating systems.

Pros of mimipenguin

• Focused specifically on Linux memory extraction
• Lightweight and easy to use
• Actively maintained with recent updates

Cons of mimipenguin

• Limited to Linux systems only
• Fewer supported password extraction methods
• Less comprehensive documentation

Code comparison

mimipenguin:

function dump_pid () {
    pid=$1
    output_file="/tmp/dump_${pid}.dump"
    if [[ $kernel_major -gt 3 ]]; then
        gcore -o $output_file $pid > /dev/null 2>&1
    else
        gdb --batch --pid $pid -ex "generate-core-file $output_file" > /dev/null 2>&1
    fi
}

LaZagne:

def dump_to_file(self, string):
    with open(self.output, 'w') as f:
        f.write(string)
    
    if os.path.exists(self.output):
        return True
    return False

Summary

mimipenguin is a specialized tool for extracting passwords from Linux memory, while LaZagne is a more comprehensive password recovery tool supporting multiple operating systems. mimipenguin offers simplicity and focus for Linux environments, but LaZagne provides broader functionality and cross-platform support. The code snippets demonstrate the different approaches: mimipenguin uses bash for memory dumping, while LaZagne employs Python for file operations.

Pros of HackBrowserData

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Actively maintained with frequent updates
• Supports a wider range of browsers and applications

Cons of HackBrowserData

• Less comprehensive in terms of password recovery from non-browser applications
• Requires Go programming language environment for compilation
• May have a steeper learning curve for non-technical users

Code Comparison

LaZagne:

def run_lazagne(category_selected="all", subcategories={}, password=None):
    for r in runLaZagne(category_selected, subcategories, password):
        yield r

HackBrowserData:

func New(browser string) (results.Browsers, error) {
	var b results.Browsers
	switch strings.ToLower(browser) {
	case "chrome":
		b = browsers.NewChrome()
	case "edge":
		b = browsers.NewEdge()
	// ... (other browser cases)
	}
	return b, nil
}

Both projects aim to recover stored credentials, but HackBrowserData focuses more on browser data extraction, while LaZagne offers a broader scope including system and application passwords. HackBrowserData's code structure reflects its modular approach to supporting multiple browsers, whereas LaZagne's code shows a more generalized password recovery function.

Pros of SessionGopher

• Focused specifically on extracting session information from Windows systems
• Lightweight and easy to use with PowerShell
• Can retrieve PuTTY, WinSCP, and RDP session information

Cons of SessionGopher

• Limited to Windows systems only
• Fewer supported applications compared to LaZagne
• Less actively maintained (last update in 2018)

Code Comparison

SessionGopher (PowerShell):

function Get-PuTTYSessions {
    $regPath = "HKCU:\Software\SimonTatham\PuTTY\Sessions"
    Get-ChildItem $regPath | ForEach-Object {
        $_.PSChildName
    }
}

LaZagne (Python):

class Putty(ModuleInfo):
    def run(self):
        pwd_found = []
        key_path = 'Software\\SimonTatham\\PuTTY\\Sessions'
        try:
            hkey = OpenKey(HKEY_CURRENT_USER, key_path)
        except Exception:
            return []

Both tools aim to extract session information, but SessionGopher is more focused on Windows-specific data, while LaZagne offers broader support for multiple operating systems and applications. LaZagne is more actively maintained and provides a more comprehensive set of features for password recovery across various software.

Pros of Snaffler

• Focused on finding sensitive information in Windows domains
• Highly customizable with rule-based scanning
• Actively maintained with regular updates

Cons of Snaffler

• Limited to Windows environments
• Requires more setup and configuration
• Less comprehensive in terms of supported password sources

Code Comparison

Snaffler (C#):

public static void Snaffler(Options opts)
{
    PrintBanner();
    SetupLogging(opts);
    // ... (additional setup code)
}

LaZagne (Python):

def run_lazagne(category_selected='all', subcategories={}, password=None):
    for category in category_selected:
        for module in modules[category]:
            try:
                mod = modules[category][module].run(subcategories[module] if module in subcategories else None)
                # ... (result processing)
            except:
                pass

Snaffler is tailored for Windows domain environments, offering customizable rule-based scanning for sensitive information. It's actively maintained but requires more setup. LaZagne, on the other hand, is a multi-platform tool that supports a wider range of password sources and is easier to use out of the box. LaZagne's code is in Python, making it more accessible for scripting, while Snaffler's C# implementation may offer better performance in Windows environments.