Pros of DVWA

• Simpler setup and easier to get started with for beginners
• More focused on specific web application vulnerabilities
• Better documentation and explanations for each vulnerability

Cons of DVWA

• Less realistic compared to modern web applications
• Limited in scope and functionality
• Outdated technology stack (PHP-based)

Code Comparison

DVWA (SQL Injection example):

$id = $_GET['id'];
$query = "SELECT first_name, last_name FROM users WHERE user_id = '$id';";
$result = mysqli_query($GLOBALS["___mysqli_ston"], $query) or die('<pre>' . mysqli_error($GLOBALS["___mysqli_ston"]) . '</pre>' );

Hackazon (SQL Injection example):

$sql = "SELECT * FROM products WHERE id = :id";
$stmt = $this->pixie->db->prepare($sql);
$stmt->execute(['id' => $id]);
$product = $stmt->fetch();

The DVWA code demonstrates a vulnerable SQL query, while Hackazon uses prepared statements to prevent SQL injection. This reflects the different purposes of the two projects: DVWA intentionally includes vulnerabilities for learning, while Hackazon aims to be more secure and realistic.

Pros of WebGoat

• More comprehensive, covering a wider range of web application security vulnerabilities
• Better documentation and learning resources, including detailed lessons and explanations
• Larger and more active community, leading to frequent updates and improvements

Cons of WebGoat

• Steeper learning curve, potentially overwhelming for beginners
• Less realistic representation of a modern web application compared to Hackazon
• Primarily focused on Java-based vulnerabilities, which may not be as relevant for all learners

Code Comparison

WebGoat (Java):

@GetMapping("/access-control/{action}")
public @ResponseBody AttackResult completed(@PathVariable String action) {
    User user = userSessionService.getUser();
    if (user.isAdmin()) {
        return success(this).build();
    }
    return failed(this).feedback("access-control.unauthorized").build();
}

Hackazon (PHP):

public function checkAccess()
{
    if (!$this->pixie->auth->user()) {
        $this->redirect('/user/login');
    }
    if (!$this->pixie->auth->user()->hasRole('admin')) {
        $this->redirect('/');
    }
}

Both examples demonstrate access control checks, but WebGoat's implementation is more focused on teaching specific vulnerabilities, while Hackazon's code is more representative of real-world applications.

Pros of xvwa

• Simpler setup and installation process
• Focuses specifically on XML-based vulnerabilities
• Includes detailed explanations of each vulnerability

Cons of xvwa

• Less comprehensive in terms of overall web application vulnerabilities
• Not actively maintained (last update in 2017)
• Limited documentation and community support

Code Comparison

xvwa (PHP):

<?php
$xml = simplexml_load_string($_POST['xml']);
echo $xml->name;
?>

Hackazon (PHP):

<?php
$product = new Product();
$product->name = $request->post('name');
$product->save();
?>

The xvwa code snippet demonstrates a simple XML parsing vulnerability, while the Hackazon example shows a more realistic product creation scenario. Hackazon's code is generally more complex and representative of real-world applications, making it better for comprehensive security testing.

Both projects serve as vulnerable web applications for security testing, but Hackazon offers a more extensive and realistic environment. xvwa is more focused on XML vulnerabilities and may be easier to set up for specific testing scenarios. However, Hackazon provides a broader range of vulnerabilities and is actively maintained, making it a more suitable choice for comprehensive security training and testing.