Pros of Wifiphisher

• More advanced phishing capabilities with customizable templates
• Supports Evil Twin attacks and can create rogue access points
• Active development with regular updates and bug fixes

Cons of Wifiphisher

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more system resources to run effectively
• Limited GUI options, primarily command-line based

Code Comparison

Fern-wifi-cracker (Python):

from PyQt4 import QtCore, QtGui
import os

class Fern_Main_Window(QtGui.QMainWindow):
    def __init__(self):
        QtGui.QMainWindow.__init__(self)
        self.setupUi(self)

Wifiphisher (Python):

from scapy.all import *
import os
import sys

def set_ip_fwd():
    os.system('echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward')

Both projects use Python, but Fern-wifi-cracker relies on PyQt4 for its GUI, while Wifiphisher focuses on command-line functionality using libraries like Scapy for network manipulation. Wifiphisher's code tends to be more focused on low-level network operations, while Fern-wifi-cracker includes more GUI-related code.

Pros of airgeddon

• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Supports a wider range of wireless attacks and tools
• Offers a more comprehensive and user-friendly interface

Cons of airgeddon

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Requires more system resources to run effectively
• May be overwhelming for beginners in wireless security testing

Code Comparison

fern-wifi-cracker:

def scan_network(self):
    self.wps_functions.stop_wps_attack()
    self.disconnect_attack()
    self.scan_control = True
    thread.start_new_thread(self.scan_loop,())

airgeddon:

function set_interface_mode() {
    if [ "$1" = "monitor" ]; then
        ${airmon} start "${interface}" >/dev/null 2>&1
    elif [ "$1" = "managed" ]; then
        ${airmon} stop "${interface}" >/dev/null 2>&1
    fi
}

Both projects aim to provide wireless network auditing tools, but they differ in their approach and implementation. fern-wifi-cracker is written in Python and offers a graphical interface, while airgeddon is a bash script with a text-based menu system. airgeddon generally provides more features and is more actively maintained, but may be more challenging for newcomers to use effectively.

Pros of wifite2

• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Supports a wider range of attack methods and tools
• Better command-line interface and automation capabilities

Cons of wifite2

• Lacks a graphical user interface, which may be less user-friendly for beginners
• Requires more manual configuration and setup compared to Fern WiFi Cracker

Code Comparison

Fern WiFi Cracker (Python):

from core import *
from gui import *

class MainWindow(QMainWindow,Ui_Dialog):
    def __init__(self):
        QMainWindow.__init__(self)
        self.setupUi(self)

wifite2 (Python):

from .config import Configuration
from .util.color import Color

def entry_point():
    try:
        Configuration.initialize(load_interface=False)

Both projects are written in Python, but wifite2 has a more modular structure and focuses on command-line functionality, while Fern WiFi Cracker includes a GUI component.

wifite2 is generally considered more powerful and flexible for advanced users, while Fern WiFi Cracker may be easier for beginners due to its graphical interface. However, wifite2's active development and broader feature set make it a more comprehensive tool for WiFi security testing.

Pros of Fluxion

• More active development with recent updates and contributions
• Supports a wider range of attack vectors and techniques
• Better documentation and user guides

Cons of Fluxion

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires more dependencies and system resources
• May be less stable due to frequent updates and changes

Code Comparison

Fern-wifi-cracker:

def scan_network():
    interface = get_network_interface()
    networks = subprocess.check_output(["iwlist", interface, "scan"])
    return parse_networks(networks)

Fluxion:

function scan_for_targets() {
    xterm -hold -e airodump-ng $WIRELESS_IFACE &
    airodump_pid=$!
    sleep 10
    kill $airodump_pid
}

The code snippets show different approaches to network scanning. Fern-wifi-cracker uses Python and system commands, while Fluxion utilizes bash scripting and specialized tools like airodump-ng.

Both projects aim to assess Wi-Fi security, but Fluxion offers more advanced features and attack methods. Fern-wifi-cracker is simpler to use and may be more suitable for beginners or quick assessments. Fluxion provides a more comprehensive toolkit for experienced users but requires more setup and knowledge to use effectively.

Pros of eaphammer

• More focused on enterprise Wi-Fi attacks, particularly against WPA2-Enterprise networks
• Includes advanced features like hostile portal attacks and indirect wireless pivots
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of eaphammer

• Steeper learning curve due to its more specialized nature
• Less user-friendly interface compared to Fern WiFi Cracker's GUI
• Requires more manual configuration and command-line usage

Code Comparison

eaphammer uses a modular approach with separate Python scripts for different functionalities:

from core.utils import *
from core.handlers.ap_handler import APHandler
from core.handlers.db_handler import DBHandler

Fern WiFi Cracker employs a more monolithic structure with a GUI-centric design:

from gui.main_window import *
from core.fern import *
from core.tools import *

Both projects utilize Python, but eaphammer's code structure is more oriented towards advanced users and security professionals, while Fern WiFi Cracker aims for broader accessibility.

eaphammer's focus on enterprise Wi-Fi attacks and advanced features makes it a powerful tool for security professionals and penetration testers. However, Fern WiFi Cracker's user-friendly GUI and broader range of basic Wi-Fi cracking tools make it more suitable for beginners and general-purpose Wi-Fi security testing.

Pros of WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated

• More comprehensive suite of tools for wireless network attacks and analysis
• Includes features like captive portal creation and DNS spoofing
• Active development with more recent updates

Cons of WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Requires more system resources to run effectively
• Some users report stability issues with certain modules

Code Comparison

Fern-Wifi-Cracker:

def wep_crack_launcher(self):
    variables.exec_command = 'aircrack-ng -a 1 %s' % (variables.temp_capture)
    variables.exec_command += ' -l ' + variables.wep_key_filename
    subprocess.Popen(variables.exec_command,shell=True,stdout=subprocess.PIPE,stderr=subprocess.PIPE)

WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated:

def getAccessPointSettings(self):
    self.confgSetting = {}
    for i in self.ListRules.keys():
        self.confgSetting[i] = []
        for config in self.ListRules[i]:
            self.confgSetting[i].append(config.currentText())
    return self.confgSetting

Both projects use Python for their core functionality, but WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated appears to have a more complex structure with additional features and configurations. Fern-Wifi-Cracker focuses more on specific cracking tasks, while WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated offers a broader range of network manipulation tools.