Pros of waybackurls

• Simpler and more focused tool, specifically for fetching URLs from the Wayback Machine
• Faster execution for its specific task
• Lightweight with minimal dependencies

Cons of waybackurls

• Limited functionality compared to hakrawler's broader feature set
• Lacks the ability to crawl websites directly
• No built-in filtering or pattern matching capabilities

Code Comparison

waybackurls:

resp, err := http.Get(fmt.Sprintf("http://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=%s/*&output=json&fl=original&collapse=urlkey", url))
if err != nil {
    return nil, err
}
defer resp.Body.Close()

hakrawler:

c := colly.NewCollector(
    colly.UserAgent("Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0"),
    colly.MaxDepth(depth),
    colly.IgnoreRobotsTxt(),
)
c.OnHTML("a[href]", func(e *colly.HTMLElement) {
    link := e.Attr("href")
    absoluteURL := e.Request.AbsoluteURL(link)
    // ... (additional processing)
}

Both tools serve different purposes within the realm of URL discovery and web crawling. waybackurls is a focused tool for retrieving historical URLs from the Wayback Machine, while hakrawler is a more comprehensive web crawler with additional features for discovering and analyzing web content.

Pros of Katana

• More advanced crawling capabilities, including JavaScript rendering and form submission
• Supports multiple output formats (JSON, Markdown, etc.)
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and new features

Cons of Katana

• Higher resource consumption due to more complex functionality
• Steeper learning curve for advanced features
• May be overkill for simple crawling tasks

Code Comparison

Hakrawler (simple usage):

cat urls.txt | hakrawler

Katana (simple usage):

katana -u https://example.com

Key Differences

• Hakrawler is lightweight and focused on speed, while Katana offers more comprehensive crawling features
• Katana provides better support for modern web applications with JavaScript rendering
• Hakrawler is easier to use for basic tasks, while Katana offers more customization options

Use Cases

• Hakrawler: Quick reconnaissance and simple crawling tasks
• Katana: In-depth web application scanning and complex crawling scenarios

Both tools have their merits, and the choice depends on the specific requirements of the task at hand. Hakrawler excels in simplicity and speed, while Katana offers more advanced features for thorough web application analysis.

Pros of gospider

• More comprehensive crawling capabilities, including JavaScript rendering
• Supports multiple output formats (JSON, Markdown, CSV)
• Includes built-in modules for extracting specific types of information (e.g., subdomains, AWS S3 buckets)

Cons of gospider

• Potentially slower due to more extensive crawling and JavaScript rendering
• May require more system resources for larger scans
• Steeper learning curve due to more advanced features and options

Code comparison

hakrawler:

func crawl(url string, depth int) {
    if depth <= 0 {
        return
    }
    // Crawl logic here
}

gospider:

func (s *Spider) Start() error {
    for _, u := range s.C.URLs {
        s.wg.Add(1)
        go func(url string) {
            defer s.wg.Done()
            s.crawl(url)
        }(u)
    }
    s.wg.Wait()
    return nil
}

Both projects use Go for web crawling, but gospider implements a more complex concurrent crawling mechanism using goroutines and wait groups, while hakrawler uses a simpler recursive approach.

Pros of gau

• Faster execution due to concurrent fetching from multiple sources
• Supports more data sources, including Wayback Machine, AlienVault OTX, and Common Crawl
• Provides options for custom output formatting

Cons of gau

• Less flexible in terms of crawling depth and following links
• May produce more noise in results due to its broader data sources
• Lacks built-in filtering options for specific file types or patterns

Code Comparison

hakrawler:

func crawl(url string, depth int, source string) {
    if depth >= *maxDepth {
        return
    }
    // ... (crawling logic)
}

gau:

func getUrls(domain string, providers []string) {
    var wg sync.WaitGroup
    for _, provider := range providers {
        wg.Add(1)
        go func(provider string) {
            defer wg.Done()
            // ... (fetching logic for each provider)
        }(provider)
    }
    wg.Wait()
}

The code snippets highlight the different approaches: hakrawler uses recursive crawling with depth control, while gau focuses on concurrent fetching from multiple providers.

Pros of Photon

• More comprehensive crawling capabilities, including JavaScript parsing and DNS enumeration
• Supports multiple output formats (JSON, CSV, TXT)
• Includes additional features like parameter discovery and intelligent error handling

Cons of Photon

• Slower performance compared to hakrawler, especially for large-scale scans
• More complex setup and usage, requiring additional dependencies
• Less frequent updates and maintenance

Code Comparison

Photon:

def photon(url, seeds, level, threads, delay, timeout, cook, headers):
    # ... (initialization code)
    for url in urls:
        # ... (URL processing)
    # ... (output handling)

hakrawler:

func crawl(url string, depth int, source string) {
    // ... (initialization code)
    for _, link := range links {
        // ... (link processing)
    }
    // ... (output handling)
}

Both tools use similar approaches for crawling, but Photon's implementation in Python allows for more flexibility and additional features, while hakrawler's Go implementation focuses on speed and simplicity.