Pros of PEASS-ng

• More comprehensive, covering multiple privilege escalation techniques
• Actively maintained with frequent updates
• Supports both Linux and Windows systems

Cons of PEASS-ng

• Larger codebase, potentially slower execution
• May produce more verbose output, requiring more analysis

Code Comparison

PEASS-ng (linpeas.sh):

if [ "$MACPEAS" ]; then
    print_title "MacPEAS"
    macpeas_show_banner
    macpeas_system_information
    macpeas_users_information
    macpeas_software_information

linux-exploit-suggester-2:

sub get_kernel_version {
    my $uname = `uname -r`;
    $uname =~ /(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)/;
    return $1, $2, $3;
}

PEASS-ng offers a more modular approach with separate functions for different system aspects, while linux-exploit-suggester-2 focuses on specific kernel version extraction. PEASS-ng's code structure allows for easier expansion and maintenance across multiple operating systems.

Pros of linux-exploit-suggester

• More actively maintained with recent updates
• Includes a larger database of exploits
• Offers additional features like remote scanning and exploit downloading

Cons of linux-exploit-suggester

• Slightly more complex to use due to additional options
• May produce more false positives in some cases
• Requires more dependencies for full functionality

Code Comparison

linux-exploit-suggester:

./linux-exploit-suggester.sh --uname "3.13.0-24-generic" --pkglist-file pkglist.txt

linux-exploit-suggester-2:

./linux-exploit-suggester-2.pl -k 3.13.0-24-generic

The linux-exploit-suggester offers more command-line options and flexibility, while linux-exploit-suggester-2 has a simpler syntax for basic usage.

Both tools serve similar purposes but differ in their implementation and feature sets. linux-exploit-suggester is written in Bash, while linux-exploit-suggester-2 is written in Perl. The former offers more advanced features and a larger exploit database, making it potentially more comprehensive for security assessments. However, linux-exploit-suggester-2 may be easier to use for quick checks and has fewer dependencies.

Ultimately, the choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the user, such as the desired level of detail, ease of use, and the target system's characteristics.

Pros of LinEnum

• More comprehensive system enumeration, covering a wider range of system information
• Includes checks for sensitive files and potential misconfigurations
• Actively maintained with regular updates and contributions

Cons of LinEnum

• Larger script size, potentially slower execution on target systems
• May generate more noise in output, requiring more analysis to identify critical issues
• Less focused on specific exploit suggestions compared to linux-exploit-suggester-2

Code Comparison

LinEnum:

if [ "$thorough" = "1" ]; then
  header "Thorough Tests"
  thorough_tests
fi

linux-exploit-suggester-2:

for POC in ${EXPLOITS[@]}; do
  evaluate_poc $POC
done

LinEnum focuses on comprehensive system enumeration with optional thorough tests, while linux-exploit-suggester-2 is more targeted towards identifying potential exploits based on system information.

Both tools serve different purposes in the penetration testing workflow. LinEnum provides a broader overview of system information, while linux-exploit-suggester-2 is more specialized in suggesting potential exploits based on the target system's characteristics.

Pros of linuxprivchecker

• More comprehensive system information gathering, including network configurations, cron jobs, and user information
• Provides a detailed report of potential privilege escalation vectors
• Actively maintained with recent updates

Cons of linuxprivchecker

• Focuses on information gathering rather than suggesting specific exploits
• May require more manual analysis of the output to identify vulnerabilities
• Written in Python, which may not be available on all target systems

Code Comparison

linux-exploit-suggester-2:

#!/bin/bash
version="2.0.7"
...

linuxprivchecker:

#!/usr/bin/env python

###############################################
## linuxprivchecker.py
...

linux-exploit-suggester-2 is a Bash script, while linuxprivchecker is written in Python. This difference in programming languages affects portability and execution on target systems.

linux-exploit-suggester-2 focuses on matching the system's kernel version and installed packages against a database of known exploits, providing specific exploit suggestions. In contrast, linuxprivchecker performs a broader system analysis, gathering detailed information about the target system's configuration and potential security weaknesses.

Both tools are valuable for privilege escalation assessments, but they serve slightly different purposes. linux-exploit-suggester-2 is more targeted towards identifying specific exploit opportunities, while linuxprivchecker provides a comprehensive system overview for manual analysis.

Pros of BeRoot

• Multi-platform support (Windows, Linux, macOS)
• More comprehensive privilege escalation checks
• Active development and regular updates

Cons of BeRoot

• Larger codebase, potentially slower execution
• Requires Python environment setup
• Less focused on specific exploit suggestions

Code Comparison

BeRoot (Python):

def check_suid_bin():
    suid = []
    for path in os.environ['PATH'].split(':'):
        for file in os.listdir(path):
            try:
                if os.stat(os.path.join(path, file)).st_mode & stat.S_ISUID:
                    suid.append(os.path.join(path, file))
            except:
                pass
    return suid

linux-exploit-suggester-2 (Bash):

function scan_exploits() {
    echo "Searching for local exploits..."
    for EXP in "${EXPLOITS[@]}"; do
        eval "${EXP}_check"
    done
}

BeRoot offers a more comprehensive approach to privilege escalation checks across multiple platforms, while linux-exploit-suggester-2 focuses specifically on suggesting Linux kernel exploits. BeRoot's Python codebase allows for more complex checks, but may require additional setup. linux-exploit-suggester-2's Bash script is simpler and more lightweight, making it easier to run on target systems without dependencies.