Pros of PEASS-ng

• Multi-platform support (Windows, Linux, macOS)
• Actively maintained with frequent updates
• Comprehensive privilege escalation checks beyond just exploits

Cons of PEASS-ng

• More complex to use due to its extensive feature set
• May generate more false positives due to broader scope

Code Comparison

PEASS-ng (LinPEAS):

if [ "$MACPEAS" ]; then
    print_2title "System Info"
    system_profiler SPSoftwareDataType SPHardwareDataType
else
    print_2title "Operative system"
    (cat /proc/version || uname -a ) 2>/dev/null | sed -E "s,$kernelDCW_Ubuntu_Precise_1,${SED_RED_YELLOW}," | sed -E "s,$kernelDCW_Ubuntu_Trusty_1,${SED_RED_YELLOW}," | sed -E "s,$kernelDCW_Ubuntu_Xenial_1,${SED_RED_YELLOW},"
fi

Windows-Exploit-Suggester:

def main():
    args = parse_args()
    if args.update:
        update_databases()
    if args.database and args.systeminfo:
        (results, sysinfo) = parse_systeminfo(args.systeminfo, args.database)
        if results:
            display_results(results, args.batchfile)

The code snippets show that PEASS-ng focuses on gathering system information across multiple platforms, while Windows-Exploit-Suggester is more specialized in parsing Windows system information and suggesting exploits based on the collected data.

Pros of wesng

• Actively maintained with regular updates
• Written in Python 3, offering better performance and compatibility
• Supports custom database files for vulnerability matching

Cons of wesng

• Requires manual download of the Microsoft vulnerability database
• May have a steeper learning curve for new users
• Limited documentation compared to Windows-Exploit-Suggester

Code Comparison

Windows-Exploit-Suggester:

def main():
    args = parse_args()
    if args.update:
        update_databases()
    if args.systeminfo:
        parse_systeminfo(args.systeminfo)

wesng:

def main():
    args = parse_arguments()
    if args.update:
        update_definitions(args)
    if args.systeminfo:
        analyze_systeminfo(args)

Both tools use similar command-line argument parsing and main function structure. However, wesng's codebase is more modular and follows modern Python practices.

wesng offers improved performance and compatibility due to its Python 3 implementation. It also provides more flexibility with custom database support. However, it requires manual database updates and may be less user-friendly for beginners.

Windows-Exploit-Suggester, while older, has more extensive documentation and may be easier for newcomers to use. However, it lacks some of the advanced features and performance improvements found in wesng.

Pros of SharpUp

• Written in C#, allowing for easier integration with other .NET tools and frameworks
• Designed specifically for Windows privilege escalation, providing more focused and tailored results
• Can be run directly in memory, making it stealthier and potentially evading some antivirus detections

Cons of SharpUp

• Limited to Windows environments, unlike Windows-Exploit-Suggester which can be run from non-Windows systems
• May require more setup and dependencies compared to the Python-based Windows-Exploit-Suggester
• Potentially less comprehensive in terms of exploit suggestions, as it focuses primarily on privilege escalation vectors

Code Comparison

Windows-Exploit-Suggester (Python):

def main():
    args = parse_args()
    if args.update:
        update_databases()
    else:
        run_scan(args)

SharpUp (C#):

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    Arguments arguments = ArgumentParser.Parse(args);
    if (arguments.Action == Action.CheckAll)
        CheckAll();
}

Both tools use command-line arguments to determine their actions, but SharpUp's C# implementation allows for more direct integration with Windows systems and .NET frameworks.

Pros of Watson

• Written in C#, allowing for easier integration with other .NET tools and frameworks
• Designed specifically for Windows 10 and Server 2016/2019, providing more accurate results for modern systems
• Includes a graphical user interface (GUI) version for easier use by non-technical users

Cons of Watson

• Limited to newer Windows versions, not suitable for older systems
• Requires .NET Framework to be installed on the target system
• May have a larger footprint and be more detectable compared to simpler Python scripts

Code Comparison

Windows-Exploit-Suggester (Python):

def main():
    args = parse_args()
    if args.update:
        update_databases()
    if args.systeminfo:
        parse_systeminfo(args.systeminfo)

Watson (C#):

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    var osVersion = Wmi.GetOSVersion();
    var hotfixes = Wmi.GetHotfixes();
    var exploits = ExploitCollection.GetExploits();
}

Both tools aim to identify potential vulnerabilities in Windows systems, but they approach the task differently. Windows-Exploit-Suggester is more versatile and can work with older systems, while Watson focuses on providing accurate results for modern Windows versions with a more user-friendly interface.

Pros of PowerSploit

• Comprehensive suite of PowerShell-based post-exploitation tools
• Actively maintained with regular updates and contributions
• Includes modules for various tasks like privilege escalation, persistence, and data exfiltration

Cons of PowerSploit

• Requires PowerShell execution, which may be restricted in some environments
• More complex to use compared to Windows-Exploit-Suggester's straightforward approach
• Potentially more likely to trigger antivirus alerts due to its extensive functionality

Code Comparison

Windows-Exploit-Suggester:

def main():
    args = parse_args()
    if args.update:
        update_databases(args)
    else:
        run_wes(args)

PowerSploit:

function Invoke-Mimikatz
{
    [CmdletBinding()]
    Param (
        [Parameter(Position = 0, ValueFromPipeline = $True, ValueFromPipelineByPropertyName = $True)]
        [Alias('Module')]
        [ValidateSet('sekurlsa','kerberos','crypto','vault','lsadump','privilege','process','service','event','misc','ts','kernel')]
        [String[]]
        $Command = 'sekurlsa::logonpasswords'
    )

The code snippets highlight the different approaches: Windows-Exploit-Suggester uses Python for vulnerability scanning, while PowerSploit leverages PowerShell for post-exploitation tasks, as seen in the Invoke-Mimikatz function example.

Pros of windows-kernel-exploits

• Provides a comprehensive collection of Windows kernel exploits
• Includes pre-compiled executables for easy use
• Offers detailed information about each exploit, including affected versions and CVE numbers

Cons of windows-kernel-exploits

• Less frequently updated compared to Windows-Exploit-Suggester
• Lacks automated vulnerability scanning capabilities
• May require more manual effort to identify applicable exploits

Code Comparison

Windows-Exploit-Suggester:

def main():
    args = parse_args()
    if args.update:
        update_bulletin_db()
    if args.systeminfo:
        try:
            systeminfo = open(args.systeminfo, 'r').read()
        except IOError:
            print("[!] Could not open/read file: {}".format(args.systeminfo))
            sys.exit(1)

windows-kernel-exploits:

BOOL APIENTRY DllMain( HMODULE hModule,
                       DWORD  ul_reason_for_call,
                       LPVOID lpReserved
                     )
{
    return TRUE;
}

The code comparison shows that Windows-Exploit-Suggester is primarily written in Python and focuses on parsing system information and updating vulnerability databases. In contrast, windows-kernel-exploits contains C code for individual exploit implementations.