Pros of Frida

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android)
• Dynamic instrumentation with runtime code injection
• Scripting support using JavaScript for easier customization

Cons of Frida

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• Potentially higher overhead for simple hooking tasks

Code Comparison

Detours (C++):

#include <windows.h>
#include <detours.h>

int (WINAPI *TrueMessageBoxW)(HWND, LPCWSTR, LPCWSTR, UINT) = MessageBoxW;

int WINAPI HookedMessageBoxW(HWND hWnd, LPCWSTR lpText, LPCWSTR lpCaption, UINT uType) {
    return TrueMessageBoxW(hWnd, L"Hooked!", lpCaption, uType);
}

Frida (JavaScript):

Interceptor.attach(Module.getExportByName(null, 'MessageBoxW'), {
  onEnter(args) {
    args[1] = Memory.allocUtf16String('Hooked!');
  }
});

Both Detours and Frida are powerful tools for hooking and instrumenting code, but they cater to different use cases. Detours is more focused on Windows and offers a simpler API for basic hooking tasks, while Frida provides a more flexible and cross-platform solution with dynamic instrumentation capabilities. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and the target platforms you need to support.

Pros of Zydis

• Specialized in x86/x86-64 disassembly, offering more comprehensive instruction decoding
• Provides detailed information about decoded instructions, including operands and semantic attributes
• Supports multiple output formats, including Intel and AT&T syntax

Cons of Zydis

• Limited to disassembly functionality, while Detours offers broader hooking capabilities
• May have a steeper learning curve for users not specifically focused on disassembly tasks

Code Comparison

Zydis (disassembling instructions):

ZydisDisassembledInstruction instruction;
ZydisDisassembleIntel(ZYDIS_MACHINE_MODE_LONG_64, runtime_address, buffer, length, &instruction);

Detours (hooking a function):

LONG DetourAttach(&(PVOID&)TargetFunc, MyHookFunc);

While both libraries deal with low-level code manipulation, they serve different primary purposes. Zydis excels in disassembly and instruction analysis, whereas Detours focuses on function interception and hooking. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Pros of DynamoRIO

• More comprehensive and powerful runtime code manipulation capabilities
• Cross-platform support (Windows, Linux, macOS)
• Extensive API for fine-grained control over instrumentation

Cons of DynamoRIO

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Higher performance overhead compared to lightweight hooking solutions
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic use cases

Code Comparison

DynamoRIO example:

dr_emit_flags_t event_basic_block(void *drcontext, void *tag, instrlist_t *bb,
                                  bool for_trace, bool translating) {
    instr_t *instr, *next_instr;
    for (instr = instrlist_first(bb); instr != NULL; instr = next_instr) {
        next_instr = instr_get_next(instr);
        // Instrumentation logic here
    }
    return DR_EMIT_DEFAULT;
}

Detours example:

BOOL WINAPI DllMain(HINSTANCE hinst, DWORD dwReason, LPVOID reserved) {
    if (dwReason == DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH) {
        DetourTransactionBegin();
        DetourUpdateThread(GetCurrentThread());
        DetourAttach(&(PVOID&)TrueFunction, MyFunction);
        DetourTransactionCommit();
    }
    return TRUE;
}

Pros of syzkaller

• Focuses on kernel fuzzing and system call testing, providing more specialized functionality for OS-level testing
• Supports multiple operating systems, including Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Windows
• Includes a powerful crash reporting and reproduction system

Cons of syzkaller

• Steeper learning curve due to its complex architecture and specialized focus
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to Detours
• Limited applicability outside of kernel and system call testing scenarios

Code Comparison

syzkaller (system call definition):

open$dir = open(filename ptr[in, filename], flags flags[open_flags], mode flags[open_mode]) fd

Detours (function hooking):

LONG DetourAttach(PVOID *ppPointer, PVOID pDetour)

Summary

syzkaller is a specialized tool for kernel fuzzing and system call testing across multiple operating systems, offering powerful crash reporting capabilities. However, it has a steeper learning curve and limited applicability outside its specific domain. Detours, on the other hand, is more focused on function hooking and interception, making it easier to use for general-purpose binary instrumentation but less suitable for comprehensive kernel testing.

Pros of edb-debugger

• Full-featured graphical debugger with a user-friendly interface
• Cross-platform support (Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, macOS)
• Extensible plugin architecture for custom functionality

Cons of edb-debugger

• Limited to debugging and analysis, not focused on runtime code modification
• May have a steeper learning curve for users new to debugging tools

Code Comparison

edb-debugger (C++):

IDebugger *debugger = edb::v1::debugger_core;
if (debugger->attach(pid)) {
    edb::v1::debugger_core->set_active_thread(tid);
    debugger->step();
}

Detours (C):

LONG error = DetourTransactionBegin();
error = DetourUpdateThread(GetCurrentThread());
error = DetourAttach(&(PVOID&)RealFunction, MyFunction);
error = DetourTransactionCommit();

Key Differences

• edb-debugger is a comprehensive debugger, while Detours focuses on API hooking and interception
• edb-debugger provides a GUI, whereas Detours is a library for programmatic use
• Detours is Windows-specific, while edb-debugger supports multiple platforms
• edb-debugger is better suited for analysis and reverse engineering, while Detours excels at runtime code modification