Pros of cryptography

• Comprehensive cryptographic library with a wide range of algorithms and protocols
• Well-maintained with regular updates and strong community support
• Provides both high-level recipes and low-level interfaces for cryptographic operations

Cons of cryptography

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• May be overkill for simple SSL/TLS analysis tasks
• Requires more setup and configuration for specific use cases

Code Comparison

SSLyze (SSL/TLS scanning):

from sslyze import ServerNetworkLocationViaDirectConnection, ServerConnectivityTester, Scanner
from sslyze.plugins.certificate_info.implementation import CertificateInfoScanResult

server_location = ServerNetworkLocationViaDirectConnection("example.com", 443)
server_info = ServerConnectivityTester().perform(server_location)
scanner = Scanner()
scan_result = scanner.run_scan_command(server_info, CertificateInfoScanResult)

cryptography (Certificate handling):

from cryptography import x509
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import hashes

cert = x509.load_pem_x509_certificate(pem_data)
subject = cert.subject
issuer = cert.issuer
public_key = cert.public_key()

Pros of Scapy

• More versatile, supporting a wide range of network protocols beyond SSL/TLS
• Powerful packet manipulation and creation capabilities
• Extensive community support and active development

Cons of Scapy

• Steeper learning curve due to its broader scope
• Less specialized for SSL/TLS analysis compared to SSLyze
• May require more setup and configuration for specific SSL/TLS tasks

Code Comparison

SSLyze (focused on SSL/TLS scanning):

from sslyze import ServerNetworkLocationViaDirectConnection, ServerConnectivityTester, Scanner, ServerScanRequest
from sslyze.plugins.scan_commands import ScanCommand

server_location = ServerNetworkLocationViaDirectConnection("example.com", 443)
server_info = ServerConnectivityTester().perform(server_location)
scanner = Scanner()
scan_request = ServerScanRequest(server_info=server_info, scan_commands={ScanCommand.CERTIFICATE_INFO})

Scapy (general-purpose packet manipulation):

from scapy.all import *

# Create a custom SSL/TLS packet
tls_packet = IP(dst="example.com")/TCP(dport=443)/TLS(type="client_hello")

# Send the packet and capture the response
response = sr1(tls_packet)

Pros of testssl.sh

• Written in Bash, making it highly portable and easy to run on various systems
• Provides more comprehensive checks, including cipher suites, protocols, and server preferences
• Offers a text-based output that's easy to read and parse

Cons of testssl.sh

• Generally slower than sslyze due to its Bash implementation
• Less modular structure, making it harder to extend or integrate into other tools
• Limited multi-threading capabilities compared to sslyze

Code Comparison

testssl.sh:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
# testssl.sh - Testing TLS/SSL encryption anywhere on any port
TESTSSL_INSTALL_DIR="$(dirname "$0")"
PROG_NAME="$(basename "$0")"

sslyze:

from sslyze import ServerNetworkLocationViaDirectConnection, ServerConnectivityTester, Scanner
from sslyze.plugins.scan_commands import ScanCommand

server_location = ServerNetworkLocationViaDirectConnection("www.example.com", 443)

testssl.sh is a Bash script that can be run directly, while sslyze is a Python library that requires importing and using its classes and methods. testssl.sh's approach makes it easier to use as a standalone tool, while sslyze's structure allows for better integration into larger Python projects.