Pros of ExploitDB

• Larger database of exploits, including many that are not in Metasploit
• Simpler structure, making it easier to browse and search for specific exploits
• Includes more historical exploits, useful for researching older vulnerabilities

Cons of ExploitDB

• Lacks the comprehensive framework and tools provided by Metasploit
• Exploits are often in raw form, requiring more manual work to use effectively
• Less frequent updates compared to Metasploit's active development community

Code Comparison

ExploitDB typically contains raw exploit code, while Metasploit provides a structured framework. Here's a simplified example:

ExploitDB (PHP shell):

<?php
system($_GET['cmd']);
?>

Metasploit (Ruby module):

class MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote
  def exploit
    send_request_cgi({
      'method' => 'GET',
      'uri'    => '/vulnerable_page.php',
      'vars_get' => { 'cmd' => payload.encoded }
    })
  end
end

ExploitDB focuses on providing the core exploit code, while Metasploit wraps exploits in a standardized format with additional features and integration into its framework.

Pros of Nikto

• Lightweight and focused specifically on web server scanning
• Easy to use with a simpler learning curve
• Faster for quick vulnerability assessments of web servers

Cons of Nikto

• Limited scope compared to Metasploit's broader functionality
• Less frequent updates and smaller community support
• Fewer customization options and modules

Code Comparison

Nikto (Perl):

sub nikto_headers {
    my ($mark) = @_;
    my %headers;
    foreach my $header (split(/\n/, $mark->{'headers'})) {
        my ($key, $value) = split(/:\s*/, $header, 2);
        $headers{lc($key)} = $value;
    }
    return %headers;
}

Metasploit (Ruby):

def parse_headers(headers)
  parsed = {}
  headers.split(/\r?\n/).each do |header|
    key, value = header.split(':', 2)
    parsed[key.strip.downcase] = value.strip if key && value
  end
  parsed
end

Both repositories focus on security testing, but Metasploit offers a more comprehensive framework for penetration testing and exploit development. Nikto is specialized for web server scanning, making it more accessible for specific web vulnerability assessments. Metasploit provides a wider range of tools and modules, supporting various attack vectors and platforms, while Nikto remains focused on its niche.

Pros of sqlmap

• Specialized tool focused solely on SQL injection, offering deep expertise in this area
• Lightweight and easy to use, with a straightforward command-line interface
• Extensive database support, covering a wide range of SQL databases

Cons of sqlmap

• Limited scope compared to Metasploit's broader penetration testing capabilities
• Lacks the extensive exploit database and modularity of Metasploit
• Smaller community and fewer regular updates

Code Comparison

sqlmap:

def getFingerprint(attack):
    retVal = None
    if attack and Backend.getIdentifiedDbms():
        retVal = Fingerprint.getFingerprint()
    return retVal

Metasploit:

def run
  print_status("Scanning #{datastore['RHOSTS']}")
  scanner = Rex::Proto::SIP::Scanner.new(
    datastore['RHOSTS'],
    datastore['RPORT'],
    datastore['THREADS'],
    datastore['TO']
  )
  scanner.scan do |result|
    # Process scan results
  end
end

The code snippets showcase the different focus areas of the two tools. sqlmap's code is centered around SQL injection techniques, while Metasploit's example demonstrates its broader scanning capabilities across various protocols and services.

Pros of Nmap

• Focused solely on network discovery and security auditing
• Lightweight and efficient for quick scans
• Extensive scripting capabilities with NSE (Nmap Scripting Engine)

Cons of Nmap

• Limited exploitation capabilities
• Less comprehensive vulnerability assessment features
• Steeper learning curve for advanced usage

Code Comparison

Nmap (using NSE):

local http = require "http"
local shortport = require "shortport"

portrule = shortport.http

action = function(host, port)
  local response = http.get(host, port, "/")
  return response.body
end

Metasploit Framework:

class MetasploitModule < Msf::Auxiliary
  include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HTTP::Wordpress

  def run
    res = send_request_cgi({
      'method' => 'GET',
      'uri'    => normalize_uri(target_uri.path)
    })
    print_status("Response body: #{res.body}")
  end
end

Both examples demonstrate basic HTTP requests, but Metasploit's code is more oriented towards exploitation and uses a more complex structure with modules and mixins.

Pros of w3af

• Focused specifically on web application security scanning
• User-friendly web interface for easier configuration and result analysis
• Extensive plugin system for customization and extensibility

Cons of w3af

• Smaller community and less frequent updates compared to Metasploit
• More limited scope, focusing primarily on web applications rather than broader network security

Code Comparison

w3af (Python):

def get_long_desc(self):
    return """
    This plugin finds CSRF vulnerabilities.

    To detect this vulnerabilities the plugin sends a specially crafted request to
    the found forms and analyzes the response.
    """

Metasploit (Ruby):

def run
  print_status("Scanning #{datastore['RHOSTS']} for vulnerable services...")
  super
  report_vuln(
    :host  => rhost,
    :port  => rport,
    :proto => 'tcp',
    :name  => self.name,
    :info  => "Module #{self.fullname} successfully exploited"
  )
end

Both repositories provide powerful security testing tools, but they serve different purposes. w3af is specialized for web application security, offering a user-friendly interface and extensive plugin system. Metasploit, on the other hand, provides a broader range of security testing capabilities and benefits from a larger community. The code examples showcase the different languages used (Python for w3af, Ruby for Metasploit) and their respective approaches to vulnerability detection and exploitation.

Pros of WPScan

• Specialized for WordPress security scanning, offering more focused and in-depth WordPress-specific vulnerability checks
• Lighter and faster for WordPress-specific tasks, with a smaller codebase and fewer dependencies
• Easier to use for WordPress administrators who may not have extensive security expertise

Cons of WPScan

• Limited to WordPress ecosystem, lacking the versatility of Metasploit for general penetration testing
• Smaller community and fewer contributors compared to Metasploit's extensive user base and plugin ecosystem
• Less frequent updates and potentially slower response to new vulnerabilities outside the WordPress realm

Code Comparison

WPScan (Ruby):

def scan
  run_plugins
  enumerate_plugins
  enumerate_themes
  enumerate_timthumbs
  enumerate_config_backups
  enumerate_db_exports
  enumerate_users
end

Metasploit (Ruby):

def run
  print_status("Scanning #{datastore['RHOSTS']}")
  scanner = Rex::Proto::Http::Scanner.new(
    datastore['RHOSTS'],
    datastore['RPORT'],
    datastore['SSL']
  )
  scanner.scan do |result|
    # Process scan results
  end
end

The code snippets illustrate WPScan's focus on WordPress-specific enumeration tasks, while Metasploit's example shows a more generic network scanning approach.