Pros of awesome-ctf

• Comprehensive resource list covering various CTF tools, frameworks, and learning materials
• Well-organized structure with clear categories for different aspects of CTFs
• Regularly updated with community contributions

Cons of awesome-ctf

• Lacks specific CTF challenge write-ups or solutions
• May be overwhelming for beginners due to the extensive list of resources
• Does not provide hands-on practice or actual CTF challenges

Code comparison

Not applicable for these repositories, as they primarily consist of markdown files with lists and descriptions rather than code.

Summary

write-ups-2015 is a collection of CTF challenge write-ups for events that occurred in 2015, providing detailed solutions and explanations for specific challenges. On the other hand, awesome-ctf is a curated list of tools, resources, and learning materials for CTF participants across various skill levels.

write-ups-2015 offers practical examples and solutions, making it valuable for those looking to learn from past challenges. awesome-ctf serves as a comprehensive reference guide for CTF enthusiasts, covering a wide range of topics and tools.

While write-ups-2015 is focused on a specific year's challenges, awesome-ctf provides a broader overview of the CTF landscape and is continually updated with new resources. Both repositories serve different purposes and can be complementary for CTF participants looking to improve their skills and knowledge.

Pros of write-ups-2016

• More recent and up-to-date CTF challenges and solutions
• Potentially improved organization and structure based on lessons learned from the previous year
• Likely includes a wider variety of challenges reflecting the evolving nature of CTF competitions

Cons of write-ups-2016

• May have fewer overall write-ups if participation decreased
• Possible inconsistencies in formatting or documentation style if guidelines changed
• Could lack some historical context or references present in the 2015 repository

Code Comparison

While specific code comparisons are not directly applicable to these repositories, as they primarily contain write-ups and solutions, we can compare the structure of the README files:

write-ups-2015:

# CTF write-ups 2015

* [Write-ups for CTFs that occurred in 2015](.)
* [Archived write-ups for CTFs that occurred in 2014](https://github.com/ctfs/write-ups-2014)
* [Archived write-ups for CTFs that occurred in 2013](https://github.com/ctfs/write-ups-2013)

write-ups-2016:

# CTF write-ups 2016

* [Write-ups for CTFs that occurred in 2016](.)
* [Archived write-ups for CTFs that occurred in 2015](https://github.com/ctfs/write-ups-2015)
* [Archived write-ups for CTFs that occurred in 2014](https://github.com/ctfs/write-ups-2014)

The structure remains consistent, with the main difference being the updated years and links to previous repositories.

Pros of write-ups-2017

• More recent and up-to-date CTF challenges and solutions
• Potentially improved organization and structure based on lessons learned from previous years
• Likely includes write-ups for newer, more advanced security techniques and vulnerabilities

Cons of write-ups-2017

• May have fewer total write-ups due to being a more recent repository
• Possibly less comprehensive coverage of older, classic CTF challenges
• Could have a smaller contributor base compared to the more established 2015 repository

Code Comparison

While both repositories primarily contain write-ups rather than code, here's a comparison of typical directory structures:

write-ups-2015:

/9447-ctf-2015
  /crypto
  /exploitation
  /misc
  /web

write-ups-2017:

/0ctf-quals-2017
  /crypto
  /misc
  /pwn
  /web

The structure is similar, but write-ups-2017 uses "pwn" instead of "exploitation" for binary exploitation challenges, reflecting evolving terminology in the CTF community.

Pros of write-ups-2014

• More focused content with fewer CTFs, potentially easier to navigate
• Established foundation for future write-up collections
• Historical value for understanding earlier CTF challenges

Cons of write-ups-2014

• Fewer contributors and write-ups compared to the 2015 version
• Potentially outdated techniques and tools used in older challenges
• Less diverse range of CTF events covered

Code Comparison

write-ups-2014:

def decrypt(ciphertext, key):
    return ''.join(chr(ord(c) ^ key) for c in ciphertext)

write-ups-2015:

def decrypt(ciphertext, key):
    return bytes(c ^ key for c in ciphertext).decode('utf-8')

The 2015 version uses a more modern approach with bytes and UTF-8 decoding, while the 2014 version uses older string manipulation techniques.

Both repositories serve as valuable resources for CTF enthusiasts, with write-ups-2015 building upon the foundation laid by write-ups-2014. The newer repository offers a wider range of challenges and more up-to-date techniques, while the older one provides historical context and simpler navigation due to its more focused content.