Pros of MITMf

• More comprehensive feature set, including multiple attack modules
• Active development and community support
• Extensible plugin architecture for custom modules

Cons of MITMf

• More complex setup and configuration
• Potentially overwhelming for beginners
• Larger codebase, which may impact performance on resource-constrained systems

Code Comparison

MITMf:

from core.sslstrip.DnsCache import DnsCache
from core.sslstrip.URLMonitor import URLMonitor
from core.utils import *

class Plugin(Plugin):
    name = "SSLstrip+"
    optname = "sslstrip"
    implements = ["handleRequest", "handleResponse", "handleHeader"]

PCredz:

def start_sniffer():
    if args.interface:
        sniff(iface=args.interface, prn=pkt_parser, store=0)
    else:
        sniff(prn=pkt_parser, store=0)

def pkt_parser(pkt):
    if pkt.haslayer(TCP) and pkt.haslayer(Raw) and pkt.haslayer(IP):
        parse_pkt(pkt)

MITMf offers a more structured plugin-based approach, while PCredz focuses on a simpler packet sniffing implementation. MITMf's code demonstrates its extensibility, whereas PCredz showcases a more straightforward packet parsing method.

Pros of evilginx2

• More advanced phishing capabilities with real-time session hijacking
• Supports multiple target websites and custom phishing templates
• Active development and regular updates

Cons of evilginx2

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup
• Requires more resources to run effectively
• May be considered more invasive and potentially illegal in some jurisdictions

Code Comparison

PCredz (Python):

def parse_pcap(pcap_file):
    try:
        a = rdpcap(pcap_file)
        sessions = a.sessions()
        for session in sessions:
            for packet in sessions[session]:
                try:
                    if packet.haslayer(TCP) and packet.haslayer(Raw):
                        packet_data = packet[Raw].load

evilginx2 (Go):

func (p *HttpProxy) handleClient(client net.Conn) {
    defer client.Close()
    ctx := &Context{
        Params:   make(map[string]string),
        Cookies:  make(map[string]*http.Cookie),
        UserAgent: "",
    }
    p.httpredir.HandleClientRequest(client, ctx)

Both tools are used for credential harvesting, but evilginx2 offers more sophisticated phishing capabilities at the cost of increased complexity. PCredz focuses on passive network sniffing, while evilginx2 actively manipulates traffic for real-time session hijacking.

Pros of sslstrip

• Focuses specifically on SSL/TLS stripping attacks
• Lightweight and easy to use
• Well-established tool with a long history in the security community

Cons of sslstrip

• Less actively maintained compared to PCredz
• More limited in scope, focusing only on SSL/TLS stripping
• May not capture as wide a range of credentials as PCredz

Code Comparison

sslstrip:

def handleRequest(self, request):
    logging.debug("Handling request: %s" % request)
    client = self.getClientIP(request)
    self.stripSSL(request)

PCredz:

def start(self):
    self.start_sniffer()
    self.parse_pcap()
    self.print_credentials()

Key Differences

PCredz is a more comprehensive tool for capturing various types of credentials from network traffic, while sslstrip focuses specifically on SSL/TLS stripping attacks. PCredz is more actively maintained and updated, offering broader functionality for credential harvesting across different protocols. sslstrip, while more specialized, remains a popular choice for its specific use case in SSL/TLS attacks.

Both tools serve different purposes within the realm of network security testing and should be chosen based on the specific requirements of the task at hand. PCredz is better suited for general credential capturing, while sslstrip excels in scenarios where SSL/TLS stripping is the primary objective.

Pros of Bettercap

• More comprehensive network attack and monitoring tool
• Actively maintained with frequent updates
• Supports a wider range of protocols and attack vectors

Cons of Bettercap

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Requires more system resources to run effectively
• May be overkill for simple credential sniffing tasks

Code Comparison

PCredz (Python):

def parse_pcap(pcap_file):
    try:
        a = rdpcap(pcap_file)
        sessions = a.sessions()
        for session in sessions:
            for packet in sessions[session]:
                # Packet processing logic

Bettercap (Go):

func (mod *HttpProxy) onPacket(pkt gopacket.Packet) {
    if mod.isHTTPRequest(pkt) {
        req := mod.parseRequest(pkt)
        if req != nil {
            // Request processing logic

Both tools process network packets, but Bettercap's implementation is more modular and type-safe due to Go's strong typing. PCredz focuses specifically on credential extraction, while Bettercap offers a broader range of network manipulation capabilities.

Pros of Social-Engineer Toolkit

• Comprehensive suite of social engineering tools
• User-friendly interface with menu-driven options
• Regularly updated with new features and attack vectors

Cons of Social-Engineer Toolkit

• Larger footprint and more complex setup
• Requires more system resources
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

Social-Engineer Toolkit:

# Example of a phishing attack setup
choice = input("Select attack vector: ")
if choice == "1":
    site = input("Enter site to clone: ")
    clone_site(site)

PCredz:

# Example of credential extraction
for pkt in packets:
    if pkt.haslayer(TCP) and pkt.haslayer(Raw):
        process_packet(pkt)

Key Differences

• PCredz focuses specifically on credential extraction from network traffic
• Social-Engineer Toolkit offers a broader range of social engineering attacks
• PCredz is more lightweight and easier to integrate into existing workflows
• Social-Engineer Toolkit provides a more guided experience for less experienced users

Both tools serve different purposes within the realm of security testing and should be chosen based on the specific requirements of the task at hand.