Pros of awesome-ctf

• Comprehensive resource list covering various CTF topics and tools
• Well-organized structure with clear categories
• Regularly updated with community contributions

Cons of awesome-ctf

• Lacks specific CTF challenge write-ups
• May be overwhelming for beginners due to the extensive list of resources

Code comparison

Not applicable for these repositories, as they primarily consist of markdown files and don't contain significant code samples.

Key differences

write-ups-2017:

• Focuses on detailed write-ups for specific CTF challenges from 2017
• Provides step-by-step solutions and explanations
• Organized by individual CTF events

awesome-ctf:

• Serves as a curated list of CTF resources, tools, and learning materials
• Covers a wide range of topics related to CTFs
• Includes links to external resources rather than hosting content directly

Use cases

write-ups-2017 is ideal for:

• Learning from specific CTF challenges
• Understanding problem-solving approaches for past competitions
• Reviewing solutions for similar challenges

awesome-ctf is better for:

• Finding tools and resources for CTF preparation
• Discovering learning materials for various CTF categories
• Exploring the broader CTF ecosystem

Pros of write-ups-2016

• More comprehensive coverage of CTF events from 2016
• Potentially more relevant for older challenges and techniques
• Larger community contribution due to being an older repository

Cons of write-ups-2016

• Outdated information compared to write-ups-2017
• May lack newer CTF formats and challenge types introduced in 2017
• Potentially less active maintenance and updates

Code Comparison

While both repositories primarily contain write-ups and not much code, here's a sample comparison of directory structures:

write-ups-2016:

├── 0ctf-2016
├── 3dsctf-2016
├── angstromctf-2016
├── backdoor-ctf-2016
└── ...

write-ups-2017:

├── 0ctf-quals-2017
├── 3dsctf-2017
├── alexctf-2017
├── angstromctf-2017
└── ...

Both repositories follow a similar structure, organizing write-ups by CTF event and year. The main difference is the specific events covered in each year.

Pros of write-ups-2015

• More comprehensive coverage of CTF events from 2015
• Larger number of contributors and write-ups
• Includes a wider variety of challenge types and difficulty levels

Cons of write-ups-2015

• Older content may be less relevant to current CTF trends
• Some links and resources might be outdated or no longer available
• Less organized structure compared to the 2017 repository

Code Comparison

write-ups-2015:

def decrypt(ciphertext, key):
    plaintext = ""
    for i in range(len(ciphertext)):
        plaintext += chr(ord(ciphertext[i]) ^ ord(key[i % len(key)]))
    return plaintext

write-ups-2017:

def decrypt(ciphertext, key):
    return ''.join(chr(c ^ ord(key[i % len(key)])) for i, c in enumerate(map(ord, ciphertext)))

The 2017 version uses a more concise and Pythonic approach, utilizing list comprehension and the enumerate function for improved readability and efficiency.

Pros of write-ups-2014

• More historical context for older CTF challenges
• Potentially simpler challenges, suitable for beginners
• Established solutions and techniques for classic problems

Cons of write-ups-2014

• Outdated techniques and tools compared to write-ups-2017
• Fewer write-ups and less community engagement
• May not reflect current CTF trends and challenge styles

Code Comparison

write-ups-2014:

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

write-ups-2017:

from Crypto.Cipher import AES
def decrypt(ciphertext, key):
    cipher = AES.new(key, AES.MODE_ECB)
    return cipher.decrypt(ciphertext)

The code comparison shows a shift from simple XOR-based encryption in 2014 to more advanced cryptographic libraries in 2017, reflecting the evolution of CTF challenges and security practices over time.

Both repositories serve as valuable resources for CTF enthusiasts, with write-ups-2017 offering more recent and relevant content, while write-ups-2014 provides insight into the historical development of CTF challenges and solutions.