Pros of EyeWitness

• Comprehensive web application reconnaissance tool
• Captures screenshots and generates reports for easy analysis
• Supports various protocols including HTTP, HTTPS, and RDP

Cons of EyeWitness

• May require additional dependencies for full functionality
• Can be resource-intensive when scanning large networks
• Learning curve for advanced features and customization

Code Comparison

EyeWitness:

def create_driver(browser, resolution, user_agent):
    if browser == "chrome":
        chrome_options = webdriver.ChromeOptions()
        chrome_options.add_argument("--ignore-certificate-errors")
        chrome_options.add_argument("--ignore-ssl-errors")
        chrome_options.add_argument("--headless")
        chrome_options.add_argument("--window-size=" + resolution)
        if user_agent:
            chrome_options.add_argument("--user-agent=" + user_agent)
        return webdriver.Chrome(chrome_options=chrome_options)

Both repositories appear to be the same project, as EyeWitness is a single repository. The code snippet above demonstrates how the tool creates a web driver for capturing screenshots and interacting with web applications. It supports various browser options and configurations, allowing for flexibility in reconnaissance tasks.

Pros of Aquatone

• Written in Go, making it faster and more efficient for large-scale scanning
• Supports concurrent scanning, allowing for quicker results on multiple targets
• Includes built-in web server for easy viewing of results

Cons of Aquatone

• Less comprehensive reporting compared to EyeWitness
• Fewer customization options for output and scanning parameters
• Limited support for authentication methods

Code Comparison

EyeWitness (Python):

def create_driver(resolution, user_agent, proxy):
    chrome_options = webdriver.ChromeOptions()
    chrome_options.add_argument("--ignore-certificate-errors")
    chrome_options.add_argument("--headless")
    chrome_options.add_argument("--window-size={0}".format(resolution))
    chrome_options.add_argument("--user-agent={0}".format(user_agent))
    if proxy:
        chrome_options.add_argument("--proxy-server={0}".format(proxy))

Aquatone (Go):

func takeScreenshot(url string, timeout time.Duration) (*screenshot, error) {
    ctx, cancel := context.WithTimeout(context.Background(), timeout)
    defer cancel()
    task := chromedp.NewContext(ctx)
    var buf []byte
    if err := chromedp.Run(task, screenshotTasks(url, &buf)); err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
    return &screenshot{URL: url, Data: buf}, nil
}

Both tools aim to capture screenshots and gather information about web applications, but they differ in implementation language and specific features. EyeWitness offers more detailed reporting and customization, while Aquatone focuses on speed and concurrent scanning capabilities.

Pros of gowitness

• Written in Go, offering better performance and easier deployment
• Supports concurrent scanning, potentially faster for large-scale operations
• Includes built-in web server for viewing results

Cons of gowitness

• Less extensive reporting options compared to EyeWitness
• May have fewer customization options for screenshots
• Lacks some advanced features like clustering similar pages

Code Comparison

EyeWitness (Python):

def create_driver(resolution, user_agent, proxy_server):
    chrome_options = webdriver.ChromeOptions()
    chrome_options.add_argument('--ignore-certificate-errors')
    chrome_options.add_argument('--test-type')
    chrome_options.add_argument('--headless')
    return webdriver.Chrome(chrome_options=chrome_options)

gowitness (Go):

func (c *Chrome) Setup() error {
    opts := append(chromedp.DefaultExecAllocatorOptions[:],
        chromedp.Flag("ignore-certificate-errors", true),
        chromedp.Flag("headless", true),
    )
    allocCtx, cancel := chromedp.NewExecAllocator(context.Background(), opts...)
    c.context, c.cancel = chromedp.NewContext(allocCtx)
    return nil
}

Both tools use headless browsers for screenshot capture, but gowitness leverages Go's concurrency features for potentially faster execution, while EyeWitness offers more comprehensive reporting and analysis capabilities.

Pros of nmap

• Comprehensive network scanning and discovery tool
• Extensive scripting capabilities for custom scans
• Large, active community and regular updates

Cons of nmap

• Steeper learning curve for advanced features
• Can be resource-intensive for large-scale scans
• Primarily focused on network-level scanning

Code Comparison

nmap

local http = require "http"
local shortport = require "shortport"
local stdnse = require "stdnse"

portrule = shortport.http

action = function(host, port)
  local response = http.get(host, port, "/")
  return stdnse.format_output(true, response.body)
end

EyeWitness

def create_web_index_head(date):
    return """<html>
    <head>
    <title>EyeWitness Report</title>
    <style type='text/css'>
        body {margin: 0; padding: 0; background: #FFFFFF; font-size: 13px; font-family: '{font}';}
        h1 {font-size: 16px;}
        #screenshot {max-width: 850px; max-height: 550px; display: inline-block; float: right;}
        #report {width: 100%;}
    </style>
    </head>
    <body>
    <h2>EyeWitness Report ({date})</h2>
"""

While nmap focuses on network scanning and port discovery, EyeWitness specializes in web application screenshots and reporting. nmap's code example shows a basic HTTP scan script, while EyeWitness's code demonstrates HTML report generation. Both tools serve different purposes in the security assessment workflow.

Pros of masscan

• Extremely fast network scanning, capable of scanning the entire Internet in under 6 minutes
• Highly customizable with numerous command-line options for fine-tuning scans
• Supports asynchronous transmission, allowing for increased efficiency

Cons of masscan

• Focused solely on port scanning, lacking the web application analysis capabilities of EyeWitness
• May generate more network traffic and be more easily detected by intrusion detection systems
• Requires more technical expertise to interpret and analyze results compared to EyeWitness's visual output

Code Comparison

masscan:

for (i=0; i<range.count; i++) {
    struct Range *r = &range.list[i];
    count += r->end - r->begin + 1;
}

EyeWitness:

def create_web_index_head(date):
    return """<html>
    <head>
    <title>EyeWitness Report</title>
    """

The code snippets highlight the different focus areas of the two tools. masscan's C code demonstrates its emphasis on efficient scanning and range calculations, while EyeWitness's Python code shows its focus on generating visual reports for web applications.

Pros of CrackMapExec

• More versatile tool for network penetration testing and lateral movement
• Supports multiple protocols (SMB, WMI, MSSQL, etc.) for comprehensive network enumeration
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and new features

Cons of CrackMapExec

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• May trigger more security alerts due to its active scanning and exploitation capabilities
• Requires more setup and dependencies compared to EyeWitness

Code Comparison

EyeWitness (Python):

def create_web_index_html(web_index):
    with open(os.path.join(output_directory, 'index.html'), 'a') as f:
        f.write("<br><table border=\"1\">\n")
        f.write("<tr><th>Web Request Info</th></tr>\n")

CrackMapExec (Python):

def proto_flow(self, hosts, protocol_db, module, chain=None):
    for host in hosts:
        if type(host) is str:
            host = {
                'hostname': host,
                'port': protocol_db[module.protocol]['port']
            }

Both tools are written in Python, but CrackMapExec's codebase is more complex due to its broader functionality. EyeWitness focuses on web application reconnaissance, while CrackMapExec is designed for network penetration testing across multiple protocols.