Pros of BloodHound-Legacy

• Established and well-known tool in the cybersecurity community
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Proven track record for Active Directory security assessments

Cons of BloodHound-Legacy

• Older codebase may lack some modern features
• May have compatibility issues with newer systems
• Potentially slower performance compared to newer versions

Code Comparison

BloodHound-Legacy:

$GroupName = "Domain Admins"
$Group = Get-ADGroup -Identity $GroupName
$Members = Get-ADGroupMember -Identity $Group -Recursive
$Members | Select-Object Name, SamAccountName, DistinguishedName

BloodHound-Legacy:

$GroupName = "Domain Admins"
$Group = Get-ADGroup -Identity $GroupName
$Members = Get-ADGroupMember -Identity $Group -Recursive
$Members | Select-Object Name, SamAccountName, DistinguishedName

Summary

Both BloodHound-Legacy repositories appear to be identical, as they share the same name and codebase. The comparison provided above is based on the assumption that one repository might be a fork or mirror of the other. In reality, there are no significant differences between the two repositories, as they are likely the same project. Users should refer to the official SpecterOps BloodHound repository for the most up-to-date and actively maintained version of the tool.

Pros of BloodHound.py

• Written in Python, making it more accessible and easier to modify
• Lightweight and can be run directly from the command line
• Supports various authentication methods, including Kerberos

Cons of BloodHound.py

• Limited graphical interface compared to BloodHound-Legacy
• May lack some advanced features present in the full BloodHound suite
• Potentially slower performance for large-scale data collection

Code Comparison

BloodHound.py:

def get_domain_computers(self):
    entries = self.ldap_session.search(self.domain_dumper.root, '(objectClass=computer)')
    return [entry['attributes']['dNSHostName'][0] for entry in entries]

BloodHound-Legacy (JavaScript):

function getDomainComputers() {
    return session.run('MATCH (c:Computer) RETURN c.name')
        .then(result => result.records.map(record => record.get('c.name')));
}

The code snippets demonstrate the difference in language and approach. BloodHound.py uses LDAP queries directly, while BloodHound-Legacy interacts with a Neo4j database using Cypher queries.

Both projects serve similar purposes but cater to different use cases and preferences. BloodHound.py is more suitable for users comfortable with Python and command-line tools, while BloodHound-Legacy offers a more comprehensive GUI-based solution with potentially more features for advanced users.

Pros of Certipy

• Focused specifically on Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) exploitation
• Offers a comprehensive set of tools for certificate-based attacks
• Regularly updated with new features and bug fixes

Cons of Certipy

• Narrower scope compared to BloodHound-Legacy's broader AD attack surface coverage
• May require more specialized knowledge to use effectively
• Less extensive community support and documentation

Code Comparison

BloodHound-Legacy (PowerShell):

Get-DomainComputer -Properties dnshostname,ms-ds-machineaccountquota

Certipy (Python):

certipy find -u user@domain.local -p Password123 -dc-ip 10.0.0.1

BloodHound-Legacy focuses on broader AD enumeration and attack path visualization, while Certipy specializes in certificate-based attacks. BloodHound-Legacy uses PowerShell for most operations, whereas Certipy is Python-based, offering cross-platform compatibility. Both tools are valuable for penetration testers and security researchers, but they serve different purposes within the Active Directory security assessment landscape.

Pros of PowerUpSQL

• Focused specifically on SQL Server security assessment and exploitation
• Extensive set of PowerShell cmdlets for various SQL Server tasks
• Regular updates and active community support

Cons of PowerUpSQL

• Limited to SQL Server environments, unlike BloodHound's broader AD focus
• Steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with SQL Server internals
• Requires more manual analysis compared to BloodHound's visual interface

Code Comparison

PowerUpSQL:

# Example: Get SQL Server instances
Get-SQLInstanceDomain | Get-SQLServerInfo -Verbose

BloodHound-Legacy:

# Example: Collect AD data
. .\BloodHound.ps1
Invoke-BloodHound -CollectionMethod All

Both tools use PowerShell, but PowerUpSQL focuses on SQL Server-specific cmdlets, while BloodHound-Legacy targets Active Directory data collection. PowerUpSQL provides more granular control over SQL Server operations, whereas BloodHound-Legacy offers a broader scope for AD environment analysis.

Pros of PowerSploit

• More comprehensive toolkit with a wider range of post-exploitation modules
• Actively maintained with regular updates and contributions
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of PowerSploit

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to use and maintain
• May trigger more antivirus alerts due to its widespread recognition
• Requires more careful handling to avoid detection during penetration testing

Code Comparison

PowerSploit:

function Invoke-Mimikatz
{
    [CmdletBinding()]
    Param (
        [Parameter(Position = 0, ValueFromPipeline = $True, ValueFromPipelineByPropertyName = $True)]
        [Alias('FullName')]
        [ValidateNotNullOrEmpty()]
        [String[]]
        $ComputerName = $Env:COMPUTERNAME
    )

BloodHound-Legacy:

function Get-BloodHoundData
{
    [CmdletBinding()]
    Param(
        [Parameter(Position = 0, ValueFromPipeline = $True, ValueFromPipelineByPropertyName = $True)]
        [Alias('FullName')]
        [ValidateNotNullOrEmpty()]
        [String[]]
        $ComputerName = $Env:COMPUTERNAME
    )

Both repositories provide powerful tools for penetration testing and security assessment. PowerSploit offers a broader range of functionalities, while BloodHound-Legacy focuses specifically on Active Directory analysis. The code snippets show similarities in function structure, indicating that both projects follow similar PowerShell coding practices.

Pros of Rubeus

• Focused on Kerberos ticket manipulation and attacks
• Actively maintained with regular updates
• Extensive documentation and usage examples

Cons of Rubeus

• Limited to Kerberos-related functionality
• Requires more technical expertise to use effectively
• Windows-only tool, limiting cross-platform usage

Code Comparison

BloodHound-Legacy (PowerShell):

Get-DomainUser -Identity "jdoe" | Get-DomainSPNTicket

Rubeus (C#):

Rubeus.exe asktgt /user:jdoe /domain:contoso.com /rc4:HASH

Both tools can be used for Kerberos-related tasks, but Rubeus offers more granular control and a wider range of Kerberos-specific functions. BloodHound-Legacy, on the other hand, provides a broader set of Active Directory enumeration and analysis capabilities beyond just Kerberos operations.

While BloodHound-Legacy is part of a larger ecosystem for visualizing Active Directory relationships, Rubeus focuses solely on Kerberos ticket manipulation and related attacks. This specialization allows Rubeus to offer more advanced Kerberos-specific features but limits its scope compared to the comprehensive AD analysis provided by BloodHound-Legacy.