maskphish

Pros of zphisher

• More comprehensive phishing toolkit with 30+ templates
• Includes tunneling options (Cloudflared, Ngrok, Localhostrun)
• Active development with frequent updates

Cons of zphisher

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to use
• May require more setup and dependencies

Code Comparison

maskphish:

url_checker() {
    if [ ! "${1//:*}" = http ]; then
        if [ ! "${1//:*}" = https ]; then
            echo -e "\e[31m[!] Invalid URL. Please use http or https.\e[0m"
            exit 1
        fi
    fi
}

zphisher:

tunnel_menu() {
    if [[ -e ".cld.log" ]]; then
        rm -rf ".cld.log"
    fi
    printf "\n${RED}[${WHITE}-${RED}]${GREEN} Select a tunneling option:\n"
    printf "${CYAN}[${WHITE}01${CYAN}]${YELLOW} Localhost\n"
    printf "${CYAN}[${WHITE}02${CYAN}]${YELLOW} Ngrok\n"
    printf "${CYAN}[${WHITE}03${CYAN}]${YELLOW} Cloudflared\n"
    read -p "${RED}[${WHITE}-${RED}]${GREEN} Select a option: ${BLUE}"
}

Pros of Gophish

• More comprehensive phishing simulation platform
• Supports email campaigns, landing pages, and user management
• Active development with regular updates and community support

Cons of Gophish

• More complex setup and configuration required
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more resources to run (database, web server)

Code Comparison

Maskphish (URL masking):

echo -e "\n${RED}[${WHITE}+${RED}]${GREEN} Masking Domain ${RED}[${WHITE}+${RED}]${CYAN}"
echo -e ${BLUE}
read -p "Enter Phishing URL: " phish
short=$(curl -s https://is.gd/create.php\?format\=simple\&url\=${phish})
shorter=${short#https://}

Gophish (campaign creation):

campaign := models.Campaign{
    Name:          c.Name,
    UserId:        c.UserId,
    Template:      c.Template,
    Page:          c.Page,
    SMTP:          c.SMTP,
    URL:           c.URL,
    LaunchDate:    c.LaunchDate,
    SendByDate:    c.SendByDate,
    Groups:        c.Groups,
    ResultsEmail:  c.ResultsEmail,
}

While Maskphish focuses on URL masking for phishing links, Gophish provides a more comprehensive platform for creating and managing phishing campaigns. Gophish offers greater flexibility and features but requires more setup and resources. Maskphish is simpler to use but limited in scope compared to Gophish's full-fledged phishing simulation capabilities.

Pros of Social-Engineer-Toolkit

• More comprehensive toolset for various social engineering attacks
• Actively maintained with regular updates and contributions
• Supports multiple attack vectors and customization options

Cons of Social-Engineer-Toolkit

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive features
• Requires more setup and dependencies
• May be overkill for simple phishing tasks

Code Comparison

MaskPhish (URL masking):

echo -e "\n${RED}[${WHITE}+${RED}]${GREEN} Enter Phishing URL (with http or https): ${BLUE}"
read phish
url_checker $phish

Social-Engineer-Toolkit (Phishing module):

if attack_vector == "1":
    sys.path.append("src/webattack/web_clone/")
    try:
        module_reload(clone)
    except:
        import clone

Both tools focus on phishing, but Social-Engineer-Toolkit offers a broader range of attack vectors and more sophisticated options. MaskPhish is simpler and specifically designed for URL masking, while Social-Engineer-Toolkit provides a comprehensive framework for various social engineering techniques.