Pros of netdata

• Lightweight and efficient, with minimal system resource usage
• Extensive out-of-the-box metrics collection for various systems and applications
• Real-time monitoring with per-second granularity

Cons of netdata

• Less focus on network-specific monitoring compared to ntopng
• May require additional setup for advanced network traffic analysis

Code comparison

ntopng:

void NetworkInterface::getStats(lua_State* vm) {
  lua_newtable(vm);
  lua_push_int_table_entry(vm, "numPkts", stats.getNumPackets());
  lua_push_int_table_entry(vm, "numBytes", stats.getNumBytes());
  // ... more stats
}

netdata:

static void mysql_get_stats(char *db, MYSQL_RES *result) {
    MYSQL_ROW row;
    unsigned long long questions, queries, slow_queries;

    while ((row = mysql_fetch_row(result))) {
        questions = str2ull(row[0]);
        queries = str2ull(row[1]);
        slow_queries = str2ull(row[2]);
        // ... process and store stats
    }
}

Both projects use C/C++ for core functionality, but ntopng focuses on network-specific metrics, while netdata covers a broader range of system and application metrics.

Pros of Wireshark

• More comprehensive protocol support and deeper packet analysis capabilities
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Extensive filtering and search options for complex packet analysis

Cons of Wireshark

• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Limited real-time network monitoring features
• Higher resource consumption for large-scale packet captures

Code Comparison

ntopng (C++):

void Flow::updateTcpFlags(struct tcphdr *tcp) {
  if(tcp->th_flags & TH_SYN) flags |= TH_SYN_SEEN;
  if(tcp->th_flags & TH_RST) flags |= TH_RST_SEEN;
  if(tcp->th_flags & TH_FIN) flags |= TH_FIN_SEEN;
}

Wireshark (C):

static void
tcp_analyze_sequence_number(packet_info *pinfo, guint32 seq, guint32 ack,
                            guint32 seglen, guint16 flags,
                            guint32 window, struct tcp_analysis *tcpd)
{
    /* Process the sequence number */
    if (flags & TH_SYN)
        tcpd->seq = seq + 1;
    else
        tcpd->seq = seq;
}

Both projects use C/C++ for core functionality, but Wireshark's codebase is more extensive due to its broader protocol support. ntopng focuses on network traffic analysis and visualization, while Wireshark provides detailed packet-level inspection and analysis.

Pros of Zeek

• More powerful scripting language for custom analysis
• Better suited for large-scale deployments and high-performance environments
• Extensive protocol analysis capabilities across many network layers

Cons of Zeek

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Requires more system resources for operation
• Less user-friendly interface for real-time monitoring

Code Comparison

Zeek script example:

event http_request(c: connection, method: string, original_URI: string,
                   unescaped_URI: string, version: string)
    {
    print fmt("HTTP request: %s %s", method, original_URI);
    }

ntopng Lua script example:

function L7_custom_detection(flow)
   if(flow.l7_proto == "HTTP") then
      print("HTTP request detected")
   end
end

Both projects offer scripting capabilities, but Zeek's scripting language is more powerful and flexible for complex analysis tasks. ntopng's Lua scripting is simpler and more focused on flow-based analysis.

Zeek is better suited for in-depth security analysis and large-scale deployments, while ntopng excels in real-time network monitoring and visualization with a more user-friendly interface. The choice between them depends on specific use cases and required depth of analysis.

Pros of Snort3

• More focused on intrusion detection and prevention
• Highly customizable rule-based detection engine
• Extensive community-contributed ruleset

Cons of Snort3

• Steeper learning curve for configuration and rule writing
• Requires more system resources for real-time packet inspection

Code Comparison

Snort3 (rule example):

alert tcp any any -> any 80 (msg:"HTTP GET request"; content:"GET"; http_method; sid:1000001; rev:1;)

ntopng (Lua script example):

function L7.detect(flow)
  if flow:getServerPort() == 80 then
    if flow:getHTTPRequestMethod() == "GET" then
      flow:setApplicationLabel("HTTP GET")
    end
  end
end

Key Differences

• ntopng is primarily a network traffic analyzer and visualizer, while Snort3 focuses on intrusion detection and prevention
• ntopng offers a more user-friendly web interface for real-time monitoring, whereas Snort3 relies more on command-line operations and log analysis
• Snort3 provides more granular control over detection rules, while ntopng excels in providing comprehensive network traffic statistics and visualizations

Both tools serve different primary purposes but can complement each other in a comprehensive network monitoring and security setup.

Pros of securityonion

• Comprehensive security suite with multiple tools integrated
• Designed for enterprise-level network security monitoring
• Includes threat hunting and incident response capabilities

Cons of securityonion

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Requires more system resources to run effectively
• May be overkill for smaller networks or individual users

Code comparison

securityonion (from so-setup):

if [ "x$SKIP_REBOOT" != "xy" ]; then
    echo "Setup complete! Please reboot your system."
    echo "After rebooting, you can finish the remaining steps by running:"
    echo "sudo so-setup-network"
fi

ntopng (from ntopng.cpp):

void Ntop::shutdown() {
  shutdown_detected = true;
  ntop->getTrace()->traceEvent(TRACE_NORMAL, "Shutting down...");
  sleep(1); /* Wait until all threads are over */
}

Both projects use different programming languages due to their distinct purposes. securityonion primarily uses shell scripts for setup and configuration, while ntopng is written in C++ for performance-critical network monitoring tasks.