Pros of Nuclei

• More extensive and customizable scanning capabilities with a large library of templates
• Active development and regular updates from a dedicated team
• Supports multiple protocols beyond just web (e.g., DNS, TCP, SSH)

Cons of Nuclei

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex template system
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to Striker's simpler approach
• May be overkill for basic reconnaissance tasks

Code Comparison

Striker (simple usage):

python striker.py example.com

Nuclei (basic scan):

nuclei -u https://example.com -t nuclei-templates/

Key Differences

• Striker is a Python-based tool focused on web application reconnaissance
• Nuclei is a Go-based vulnerability scanner with a broader scope and more advanced features
• Striker provides a quick, all-in-one solution for basic recon, while Nuclei offers more flexibility and depth in scanning

Use Cases

• Striker: Rapid initial reconnaissance of web applications
• Nuclei: In-depth vulnerability scanning across multiple protocols and complex scenarios

Both tools have their merits, with Striker being more suitable for quick checks and Nuclei for comprehensive security assessments.

Pros of sqlmap

• More comprehensive and mature SQL injection testing tool
• Supports a wider range of database management systems
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and contributions

Cons of sqlmap

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive features
• Can be slower for quick scans compared to Striker
• Requires more manual configuration for complex scenarios

Code Comparison

sqlmap

def checkDbms(self):
    for dbms in self.DBMS_DICT:
        if conf.dbms and conf.dbms.lower() == dbms.lower():
            return dbms
    return None

Striker

def check_sqli(url):
    errors = {'MySQL': 'You have an error in your SQL syntax',
              'Oracle': 'ORA-01756',
              'MSSQL': 'Microsoft SQL Native Client error'}
    for db, error in errors.items():
        if error in requests.get(url).text:
            return db
    return None

Summary

sqlmap is a more powerful and versatile SQL injection tool with broader database support and active development. However, it may require more time to master and configure for specific scenarios. Striker, on the other hand, offers a simpler approach for quick scans but lacks the depth and extensive features of sqlmap. The code comparison shows that sqlmap has a more modular approach to DBMS detection, while Striker uses a straightforward dictionary-based method for identifying potential SQL injection vulnerabilities.

Pros of Nikto

• More comprehensive scanning capabilities with a larger database of vulnerabilities
• Actively maintained with regular updates and a strong community
• Supports multiple output formats for easy integration with other tools

Cons of Nikto

• Slower scanning speed compared to Striker
• Less user-friendly interface, primarily command-line based
• May generate more false positives due to its extensive checks

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;
}

Striker (Python):

def extract_headers(response):
    headers = {}
    for header, value in response.headers.items():
        headers[header.lower()] = value
    return headers

Both code snippets demonstrate header extraction, but Nikto uses Perl while Striker uses Python. Nikto's implementation is more verbose, splitting the headers manually, while Striker leverages Python's built-in response object for a more concise approach.

Pros of WPScan

• Specialized for WordPress security scanning
• Extensive database of WordPress vulnerabilities
• Active development and community support

Cons of WPScan

• Limited to WordPress sites only
• Requires Ruby installation and dependencies

Code Comparison

WPScan (Ruby):

def scan_headers
  puts '[+] Checking headers'
  @target.headers.each do |header|
    puts " | #{header}: #{@target.headers[header]}"
  end
end

Striker (Python):

def headers(target):
    print(O+'[!] Requesting headers')
    try:
        r = requests.get(target)
        for k, v in r.headers.items():
            print(G+' '+k+' : '+C+v)
    except:
        print(R+' [-] Exception while requesting headers')

Summary

WPScan is a specialized tool for WordPress security scanning, offering a comprehensive vulnerability database and active community support. However, it's limited to WordPress sites and requires Ruby installation. Striker, on the other hand, is a more general-purpose security scanner written in Python, offering broader functionality but potentially less depth for WordPress-specific issues.

Both tools provide header scanning capabilities, with WPScan using a more concise Ruby implementation and Striker offering a slightly more verbose Python approach with additional error handling.

Pros of w3af

• More comprehensive and feature-rich web application security scanner
• Actively maintained with regular updates and a larger community
• Supports a wide range of web technologies and vulnerabilities

Cons of w3af

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Slower scanning speed compared to Striker
• Requires more system resources to run effectively

Code Comparison

w3af (Python):

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

    The simplest type of csrf is checked, the one that is generated by
    forms.
    """

Striker (Python):

def check_csrf(url):
    form = br.select_form(nr=0)
    br.form['username'] = 'admin'
    br.form['password'] = 'password'
    br.submit()
    if 'Welcome' in br.response().read():
        print(R + '[+] CSRF Vulnerability Found')

While both tools aim to detect CSRF vulnerabilities, w3af's implementation is more modular and part of a larger framework, whereas Striker's approach is more straightforward and integrated into a single script. w3af's code suggests a more comprehensive scanning methodology, while Striker focuses on quick, targeted checks.

Pros of ZAProxy

• More comprehensive and feature-rich web application security scanner
• Actively maintained with regular updates and a large community
• Offers both GUI and CLI interfaces for flexibility in usage

Cons of ZAProxy

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Requires more system resources compared to lightweight alternatives

Code Comparison

ZAProxy (Java):

public class ActiveScan extends AbstractHostPlugin {
    @Override
    public void scan() {
        // Perform active scanning
    }
}

Striker (Python):

def scan(url):
    # Perform scanning
    pass

Key Differences

• ZAProxy is a comprehensive web application security testing tool, while Striker focuses on information gathering and vulnerability scanning
• ZAProxy is written in Java, whereas Striker is implemented in Python
• ZAProxy offers a graphical user interface, while Striker is primarily command-line based

Use Cases

• ZAProxy: Suitable for in-depth security assessments of web applications, especially in enterprise environments
• Striker: Ideal for quick reconnaissance and initial vulnerability scanning, particularly useful for bug bounty hunters and penetration testers

Community and Support

ZAProxy has a larger and more active community, with regular updates and extensive documentation. Striker, while popular, has a smaller community and less frequent updates.