Pros of joomscan

• More active development and recent updates
• Larger community and contributor base
• Better documentation and usage instructions

Cons of joomscan

• Potentially more complex to use for beginners
• May have more dependencies and requirements

Code comparison

joomscan:

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use warnings;
use Getopt::Long;
use LWP::UserAgent;

joomscan>:

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use warnings;
use Getopt::Long;

The code comparison shows that joomscan includes the LWP::UserAgent module, which is not present in joomscan>. This suggests that joomscan may have more advanced networking capabilities.

Both repositories appear to be related to Joomla scanning tools, but joomscan seems to be the more actively maintained and feature-rich option. It likely offers more comprehensive scanning capabilities and better support for modern Joomla versions. However, joomscan> might be simpler and easier to use for basic scanning tasks.

When choosing between the two, consider your specific needs, technical expertise, and the level of scanning depth required for your Joomla security assessment.

Pros of WPScan

• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Larger community and contributor base
• Comprehensive WordPress-specific vulnerability database

Cons of WPScan

• Limited to WordPress sites only
• Requires Ruby installation and dependencies
• Can be slower for large-scale scans

Code Comparison

WPScan (Ruby):

def scan_headers
  @target.headers.each do |header|
    if header.match?(/X-Powered-By: PHP/)
      puts "PHP version detected: #{header}"
    end
  end
end

Joomscan (Perl):

sub scan_headers {
    my $response = shift;
    my $headers = $response->headers;
    foreach my $header (keys %$headers) {
        print "Server: $headers->{$header}\n" if $header =~ /Server/i;
    }
}

Both tools scan HTTP headers, but WPScan focuses on WordPress-specific information, while Joomscan has a more general approach suitable for Joomla and other CMS platforms. WPScan's codebase is more modern and object-oriented, while Joomscan uses a more traditional procedural style. WPScan's larger community contributes to more frequent updates and a more extensive vulnerability database, making it a preferred choice for WordPress-specific security assessments.

Pros of CMSmap

• Supports multiple CMS platforms (WordPress, Joomla, Drupal)
• Written in Python, making it more versatile and easier to extend
• Includes both enumeration and vulnerability scanning features

Cons of CMSmap

• Less frequently updated compared to joomscan
• May have fewer Joomla-specific features and detection capabilities
• Potentially less comprehensive in terms of Joomla vulnerability coverage

Code Comparison

CMSmap (Python):

def fingerprint(self):
    self.logger.info("Server: %s", self.server)
    self.logger.info("X-Powered-By: %s", self.xpoweredby)
    self.logger.info("X-Generator: %s", self.xgenerator)

joomscan (Perl):

sub fingerprint {
    my ($self) = @_;
    $self->logger->info("Server: " . $self->server);
    $self->logger->info("X-Powered-By: " . $self->xpoweredby);
    $self->logger->info("X-Generator: " . $self->xgenerator);
}

Both tools implement fingerprinting functionality, but CMSmap uses Python's object-oriented approach, while joomscan uses Perl's object-oriented syntax. The overall structure and purpose of the code snippets are similar, demonstrating that both tools aim to gather and log server information for CMS identification.

Pros of droopescan

• Supports multiple CMS platforms (Drupal, WordPress, Silverstripe, Joomla)
• Actively maintained with more recent updates
• Includes a plugin system for easy extensibility

Cons of droopescan

• Less focused on Joomla-specific vulnerabilities
• May require more setup and dependencies
• Potentially slower scan times due to broader scope

Code Comparison

droopescan:

def enumerate_plugins(self):
    plugins = self.plugins_get()
    found_plugins = self.plugins_enumerate(plugins)
    return found_plugins

joomscan:

sub check_plugins {
    my $ua = shift;
    my $plugins = get_plugins();
    foreach my $plugin (@$plugins) {
        check_plugin($ua, $plugin);
    }
}

Both tools use similar approaches for plugin enumeration, but droopescan's Python implementation may be more accessible to modern developers. joomscan's Perl code is more Joomla-specific, potentially offering deeper insights for that particular CMS.

While joomscan focuses exclusively on Joomla, droopescan's multi-CMS approach provides broader utility. However, this comes at the cost of potentially less depth in Joomla-specific vulnerabilities. Users should choose based on their specific needs: deep Joomla scanning or broader CMS coverage.