Pros of wifiphisher

• More active development and maintenance
• Broader range of attack scenarios and customization options
• Better documentation and community support

Cons of wifiphisher

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more system resources to run effectively
• Less focus on automated credential harvesting

Code comparison

wifiphisher:

def start(self):
    """
    Start the engine.
    """
    self.network_manager.start()
    self.template_manager.start()
    self.phishing_http_server.start()
    self.phishing_manager.start()

fluxion:

startEvilTwin() {
    if [ "$FLUXIONAPServiceEnable" = "true" ]; then
        startNetworkManager
        startAccessPoint
        startDHCPService
    fi
}

The code snippets show different approaches to starting services. wifiphisher uses a more modular, object-oriented Python structure, while fluxion employs a bash script with conditional statements for service initialization.

Both tools are designed for Wi-Fi security testing, but wifiphisher offers more flexibility and features at the cost of complexity. Fluxion focuses on simplicity and ease of use, particularly for automated evil twin attacks and credential harvesting.

Pros of airgeddon

• More comprehensive set of wireless attack tools and techniques
• Regular updates and active development
• Extensive documentation and user guides

Cons of airgeddon

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Requires more system resources to run effectively

Code Comparison

airgeddon:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
#Title........: airgeddon.sh
#Description..: This is a multi-use bash script for Linux systems to audit wireless networks.
#Author.......: v1s1t0r
#Version......: 10.40
#Usage........: bash airgeddon.sh

fluxion:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
# FLUXION 3 (rev. 3)
# Fluxion is the future of MITM WPA attacks
# By: vk496
# Modded: deltax

Both projects are written in Bash and focus on wireless network auditing. airgeddon appears to have a more detailed header with version information and usage instructions, while fluxion's header is more concise.

airgeddon offers a wider range of features and attack vectors, making it more versatile but potentially more complex for beginners. fluxion, on the other hand, specializes in MITM WPA attacks, which may make it more accessible for users focusing on this specific technique.

Both projects are actively maintained, but airgeddon seems to have more frequent updates and a larger community of contributors. This could lead to better long-term support and feature development for airgeddon.

Pros of WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated

• More comprehensive suite of tools for wireless network attacks and analysis
• Includes a graphical user interface for easier use
• Supports a wider range of attack vectors and network manipulation techniques

Cons of WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated

• No longer actively maintained, potentially leading to security vulnerabilities
• May have compatibility issues with newer systems and hardware
• Less focused on social engineering aspects compared to Fluxion

Code Comparison

WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated:

class PumpkinProxy(ProxyPlugin):
    name = "PumpkinProxy"
    descr = "Intercepting HTTP data"
    def request(self, flow):
        # Custom request handling

Fluxion:

handshake_capture() {
    xterm -hold -e airodump-ng --bssid "$bssid" -c "$channel" -w "$tmp_dir/capture" "$interface" &
    airodump_pid=$!
}

The code snippets highlight the different approaches:

• WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated uses Python for its core functionality, including a proxy plugin system.
• Fluxion primarily uses Bash scripting for its operations, focusing on command-line tools.

Both projects aim to provide tools for wireless network security testing, but WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated offers a more extensive toolkit with a GUI, while Fluxion specializes in social engineering attacks using a command-line interface.

Pros of eaphammer

• More focused on enterprise wireless network attacks and assessments
• Supports advanced features like hostile portal attacks and indirect wireless pivots
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of eaphammer

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Requires more setup and dependencies compared to Fluxion
• Less user-friendly for beginners in wireless security testing

Code Comparison

eaphammer:

def hostile_portal():
    print("[*] Launching Hostile Portal attack...")
    # Complex code for advanced wireless attack
    # ...

Fluxion:

function fake_ap() {
    echo "Creating fake access point..."
    # Simpler code for basic wireless attack
    # ...
}

Summary

eaphammer is a more advanced tool focused on enterprise wireless security testing, offering sophisticated features but with a steeper learning curve. Fluxion, on the other hand, is more user-friendly and easier to set up, making it suitable for beginners. eaphammer's code tends to be more complex, reflecting its advanced capabilities, while Fluxion's code is generally simpler and more straightforward. Both tools have their place in wireless security testing, depending on the user's skill level and specific requirements.

Pros of mana

• More comprehensive toolkit for WiFi auditing and attacks
• Supports a wider range of attack vectors and scenarios
• Actively maintained with regular updates

Cons of mana

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Requires more advanced networking knowledge to use effectively
• May be overkill for simpler penetration testing tasks

Code Comparison

mana:

def start_ap():
    os.system("airmon-ng start wlan0")
    os.system("airbase-ng -e 'Free WiFi' -c 6 wlan0mon")

fluxion:

function startAP() {
    xterm -hold -e "airbase-ng -c $channel --essid '$essid' -W 1 $interface" &
    sleep 2
}

Key Differences

• mana offers a more extensive set of tools for various WiFi-related attacks and auditing
• fluxion focuses primarily on social engineering attacks against WPA/WPA2 networks
• mana requires more setup and configuration, while fluxion aims for a more streamlined user experience
• fluxion's interface is more user-friendly for beginners in penetration testing
• mana provides more flexibility for advanced users and complex scenarios

Pros of wifite2

• More comprehensive and automated tool for wireless auditing
• Supports a wider range of attack methods and wireless protocols
• Actively maintained with regular updates and bug fixes

Cons of wifite2

• Requires more technical knowledge to use effectively
• May be considered more intrusive and potentially illegal in some contexts
• Lacks the social engineering aspect present in Fluxion

Code Comparison

wifite2:

def crack_handshake(handshake, wordlist):
    cmd = [
        'aircrack-ng',
        '-w', wordlist,
        '-b', handshake.bssid,
        handshake.capfile
    ]
    proc = Process(cmd)
    return proc.stdout()

Fluxion:

function unset_interface() {
    if [ "$WIFI_MONITOR" ]
    then
        ${AIRMON} stop "$WIFI_MONITOR" > /dev/null 2>&1
        WIFI_MONITOR=""
    fi
}

The code snippets show different approaches:

• wifite2 uses Python for core functionality, including external tool execution
• Fluxion primarily uses Bash scripting for system interactions and tool management

Both tools aim to audit wireless networks, but wifite2 focuses on automated attacks, while Fluxion emphasizes social engineering techniques. wifite2 is more feature-rich and actively maintained, but Fluxion offers a unique approach to obtaining network credentials through user deception.