Pros of WPScan

• More comprehensive WordPress-specific scanning capabilities
• Larger and more active community, resulting in frequent updates
• Extensive database of WordPress vulnerabilities

Cons of WPScan

• Limited to WordPress sites only
• Requires Ruby installation, which may be less convenient for some users

Code Comparison

WPScan (Ruby):

def scan_headers
  puts 'Scanning headers...'
  # Header scanning logic
end

CMSmap (Python):

def scan_headers():
    print("Scanning headers...")
    # Header scanning logic

Key Differences

• CMSmap supports multiple CMS platforms (WordPress, Joomla, Drupal), while WPScan focuses solely on WordPress
• WPScan offers more in-depth WordPress vulnerability scanning
• CMSmap is written in Python, making it potentially easier to integrate with other Python-based tools
• WPScan has a larger user base and more frequent updates

Use Cases

• Choose WPScan for dedicated WordPress security assessments
• Opt for CMSmap when dealing with multiple CMS platforms or prefer Python-based tools

Both tools are valuable for web application security testing, with WPScan excelling in WordPress-specific scenarios and CMSmap offering broader CMS coverage.

Pros of droopescan

• Focuses specifically on Drupal, offering more targeted and in-depth scanning capabilities for this CMS
• Provides a plugin system, allowing for easy extension and customization of scanning functionality
• Offers a more user-friendly command-line interface with clear options and output

Cons of droopescan

• Limited to Drupal, while CMSmap supports multiple CMS platforms (WordPress, Joomla, Drupal)
• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates compared to CMSmap
• Smaller community and fewer contributors, potentially leading to slower bug fixes and feature additions

Code Comparison

droopescan:

def enumerate_plugins(self):
    plugins = self.plugins_get()
    for plugin in plugins:
        self.check_plugin(plugin)

CMSmap:

def scanPlugins(self):
    for plugin in self.plugins:
        self.verbose('[+] Checking plugin: ' + plugin)
        self.checkPlugin(plugin)

Both projects use similar approaches for plugin enumeration, but droopescan's code appears more concise and focused on Drupal-specific functionality, while CMSmap's code is designed to work across multiple CMS platforms.

Pros of CMSeeK

• Supports a wider range of CMS detection (over 180 CMSs)
• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Includes additional features like theme and plugin detection

Cons of CMSeeK

• Slower scanning speed compared to CMSmap
• May produce more false positives due to its extensive detection methods
• Requires more dependencies and setup

Code Comparison

CMSeeK:

def detect_cms(self):
    for cms in self.cms_list:
        if cms.detect(self.url):
            return cms
    return None

CMSmap:

def fingerprint(self):
    for cms in self.cms_list:
        if cms.check(self.url):
            return cms
    return None

Both tools use similar approaches for CMS detection, iterating through a list of supported CMSs and checking for matches. However, CMSeeK's implementation is more extensive, with a larger variety of detection methods and a more comprehensive CMS database.

CMSeeK offers broader CMS coverage and additional features, making it suitable for thorough scans. CMSmap, on the other hand, provides faster scanning with potentially fewer false positives, making it ideal for quick assessments. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the user and the scanning context.

Pros of joomscan

• Specifically designed for Joomla, offering more targeted and in-depth scanning
• Regularly updated with the latest Joomla vulnerabilities
• Supports both command-line and interactive modes for flexibility

Cons of joomscan

• Limited to Joomla CMS, while CMSmap supports multiple CMS platforms
• Less comprehensive in terms of general web application security testing
• May require more manual configuration for advanced scans

Code Comparison

CMSmap (Python):

def fingerprint(self):
    self.fingerprint_from_headers()
    self.fingerprint_from_source()
    self.fingerprint_from_robots()
    self.fingerprint_from_readme()

joomscan (Perl):

sub main {
    my $target = $ARGV[0];
    my $method = $ARGV[1];
    my $update = $ARGV[2];
    if($target){
        &update if($update);
        &start;
    }
}

Both tools use different programming languages and approaches. CMSmap focuses on multiple fingerprinting methods, while joomscan's main function handles command-line arguments and initiates the scanning process. CMSmap offers a more generalized approach, whereas joomscan is tailored specifically for Joomla vulnerabilities.

Pros of Nikto

• More comprehensive scanning capabilities, covering a wider range of web vulnerabilities
• Actively maintained with regular updates and a large user community
• Extensive plugin system for customization and extended functionality

Cons of Nikto

• Slower scanning speed compared to CMSmap
• May generate more false positives, requiring manual verification
• Less focused on CMS-specific vulnerabilities

Code Comparison

Nikto (Perl):

sub nikto_headers {
    my ($mark) = @_;
    my %headers;
    foreach my $header (split(/\n/, $mark->{'headers'})) {
        my ($key, $value) = split(/:\s*/, $header, 2);
        $headers{lc($key)} = $value if defined $key && defined $value;
    }
    return %headers;
}

CMSmap (Python):

def get_headers(self):
    headers = {}
    for header in self.headers.split('\n'):
        if ':' in header:
            key, value = header.split(':', 1)
            headers[key.strip().lower()] = value.strip()
    return headers

Both code snippets handle HTTP headers, but Nikto uses Perl while CMSmap uses Python. Nikto's implementation is slightly more concise, while CMSmap's is more explicit in its string manipulation.

Pros of Corsy

• Focuses specifically on CORS misconfigurations, providing more in-depth analysis
• Offers a wider range of CORS-related checks and vulnerability detection
• Includes features like automatic payload generation and reporting

Cons of Corsy

• Limited to CORS-related issues, while CMSmap covers a broader range of CMS vulnerabilities
• May require more manual interpretation of results compared to CMSmap's straightforward output
• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates

Code Comparison

CMSmap example:

def genericDetect(self):
    response = self.httpRequest(self.url)
    if response:
        for cms in self.cmss:
            if cms.lower() in response.content.lower():
                return cms
    return None

Corsy example:

def cors(url, headers, get, post):
    response = requester(url, headers, get, post)
    methods = response.headers.get('Access-Control-Allow-Methods')
    if methods:
        print('%s Access-Control-Allow-Methods: %s' % (good, methods))
    else:
        print('%s Access-Control-Allow-Methods header not present' % bad)

Both repositories provide security testing tools, but with different focuses. CMSmap is designed for detecting and exploiting vulnerabilities in content management systems, while Corsy specializes in identifying CORS misconfigurations. The code examples highlight their distinct approaches, with CMSmap performing generic CMS detection and Corsy analyzing CORS-specific headers.