Pros of aircrack-ng

• More comprehensive suite of tools for wireless network security assessment
• Offers lower-level control and flexibility for advanced users
• Wider range of supported wireless card chipsets

Cons of aircrack-ng

• Steeper learning curve, especially for beginners
• Requires manual execution of multiple tools for a complete attack
• Less user-friendly interface compared to Wifite2

Code Comparison

aircrack-ng

airodump-ng wlan0
aireplay-ng -0 5 -a [BSSID] wlan0
aircrack-ng -w wordlist.txt capture.cap

Wifite2

wifite --dict wordlist.txt

Wifite2 simplifies the process by automating multiple steps in a single command, while aircrack-ng requires separate commands for each phase of the attack. Aircrack-ng provides more granular control but demands greater user expertise.

Pros of Wifiphisher

• More focused on social engineering attacks and phishing
• Offers customizable phishing scenarios
• Provides a web interface for easier management

Cons of Wifiphisher

• Less automated than Wifite2
• Requires more user interaction and setup
• Limited to specific attack vectors

Code Comparison

Wifiphisher (Python):

def start(self):
    self.network_manager.start()
    self.template_manager.start()
    self.access_point.start()
    self.phishinghttp.start()

Wifite2 (Python):

def attack_wpa(self, target):
    self.crack_result = None
    self.crack_result = self.try_crack_handshake(target)
    self.result = self.crack_result

Both projects are written in Python, but their approaches differ. Wifiphisher focuses on setting up phishing scenarios, while Wifite2 is more oriented towards automated cracking attempts.

Wifite2 is generally easier to use for beginners and offers a broader range of attack methods. It's more suitable for quick penetration testing and automated audits. Wifiphisher, on the other hand, excels in creating convincing phishing attacks and is better suited for targeted social engineering attempts.

The choice between the two depends on the specific use case and the user's level of expertise in wireless security testing.

Pros of airgeddon

• More comprehensive suite of wireless auditing tools
• User-friendly interface with menu-driven options
• Supports multiple languages and customization options

Cons of airgeddon

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to maintain
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more dependencies to be installed

Code Comparison

airgeddon:

function set_chipset() {
    debug_print

    if [ "$AIRMON_INSTALLED" = "0" ]; then
        chipset=$(airmon-ng | grep "${interface}" | awk '{print $4,$5,$6,$7}')
    else
        chipset="Unknown"
    fi
}

wifite2:

def get_interface_chipset(iface):
    output = Process(['ethtool', '-i', iface]).stdout()
    if 'driver:' in output:
        return output.split('driver:')[1].split('\n')[0].strip()
    return ''

The code snippets show different approaches to identifying wireless chipsets. airgeddon uses a bash function with airmon-ng, while wifite2 employs a Python function utilizing ethtool. This reflects the overall design philosophy of each tool: airgeddon as a comprehensive bash-based suite and wifite2 as a more focused Python-based tool.

Pros of Fluxion

• More user-friendly interface with graphical elements
• Offers a wider range of attack vectors and customization options
• Includes social engineering techniques for capturing credentials

Cons of Fluxion

• Requires more setup and dependencies
• Less frequently updated compared to Wifite2
• May be considered more complex for beginners

Code Comparison

Wifite2 (Python):

def crack_handshake(self, handshake, wordlist):
    cmd = ['aircrack-ng',
           '-w', wordlist,
           '-b', handshake.bssid,
           handshake.capfile]
    proc = Process(cmd)
    return proc.stdout()

Fluxion (Bash):

function startAttack() {
    xterm $FLUXIONHoldXterm -title "FLUXION AP" -e \
    "sleep 1; airbase-ng -c $channel -e \"$essid\" -v $iface1mon" &
    xterm $FLUXIONHoldXterm -title "FLUXION Deauthenticator" -e \
    "sleep 2; aireplay-ng --deauth 0 -a $bssid --ignore-negative-one $iface1mon" &
}

Both repositories focus on WiFi security testing, but Fluxion offers a more comprehensive approach with its graphical interface and social engineering techniques. Wifite2, on the other hand, provides a simpler, command-line based tool that may be easier for beginners to use and understand. The code snippets demonstrate the different approaches: Wifite2 uses Python for a straightforward cracking function, while Fluxion employs Bash scripts for a more complex attack setup.

Pros of eaphammer

• Specialized for targeted rogue access point attacks and EAP-based Wi-Fi networks
• Includes advanced features like hostile portal attacks and captive portal cloning
• Offers more granular control over attack parameters and configurations

Cons of eaphammer

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features and options
• Less automated than Wifite2, requiring more manual intervention
• Focused primarily on enterprise Wi-Fi attacks, less versatile for general Wi-Fi hacking

Code Comparison

eaphammer:

def hostile_portal():
    configure_hostapd()
    start_httpd()
    start_dnsmasq()
    start_hostapd()

Wifite2:

def attack_wpa(target):
    crack_handshake(target)
    if not handshake_captured:
        perform_pixie_dust_attack(target)

The code snippets highlight the different focus areas of the tools. eaphammer's code shows its emphasis on setting up rogue access points, while Wifite2's code demonstrates its automated approach to cracking WPA networks.

eaphammer is more suitable for advanced users targeting enterprise networks, while Wifite2 offers a more user-friendly and automated approach for general Wi-Fi hacking tasks. The choice between the two depends on the specific use case and the user's level of expertise.

Pros of Fern-wifi-cracker

• User-friendly graphical interface, making it more accessible for beginners
• Supports multiple attack methods, including WEP, WPA/WPA2, and WPS
• Includes additional features like network mapping and vulnerability assessment

Cons of Fern-wifi-cracker

• Less actively maintained compared to Wifite2
• May have compatibility issues with newer wireless adapters
• Limited command-line options for advanced users

Code Comparison

Fern-wifi-cracker (Python):

from PyQt4 import QtCore, QtGui
import os

class mainwindow(QtGui.QMainWindow):
    def __init__(self):
        QtGui.QMainWindow.__init__(self)
        self.setupUi(self)

Wifite2 (Python):

#!/usr/bin/env python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

from .config import Configuration
from .util.color import Color

def entry_point():
    Configuration.initialize(load_interface=False)

Both projects are written in Python, but Fern-wifi-cracker uses PyQt4 for its GUI, while Wifite2 is primarily command-line based. Wifite2's code structure appears more modular and organized, with separate configuration and utility modules.