shadowsocks

Pros of v2ray-core

• More advanced protocol support, including VMess, VLESS, and Trojan
• Enhanced security features and obfuscation techniques
• Flexible routing capabilities for complex network configurations

Cons of v2ray-core

• Steeper learning curve due to increased complexity
• Higher resource consumption compared to Shadowsocks
• More challenging to set up and configure for beginners

Code Comparison

Shadowsocks (Python implementation):

from shadowsocks import encrypt, decrypt

def handle_connection(sock, remote):
    try:
        encrypt(sock, remote)
    finally:
        sock.close()
        remote.close()

v2ray-core (Go implementation):

import (
    "v2ray.com/core"
    "v2ray.com/core/app/proxyman"
)

func startV2Ray() (*core.Instance, error) {
    config := &core.Config{
        Inbound: []*core.InboundHandlerConfig{
            {
                ReceiverSettings: serial.ToTypedMessage(&proxyman.ReceiverConfig{}),
                ProxySettings:    serial.ToTypedMessage(&vmess.ServerConfig{}),
            },
        },
    }
    return core.New(config)
}

The code snippets demonstrate the basic setup for handling connections in Shadowsocks and v2ray-core. Shadowsocks uses a simpler encryption approach, while v2ray-core offers more complex configuration options and protocol support.

Pros of Trojan

• More resistant to deep packet inspection (DPI) and active probing
• Mimics HTTPS traffic more effectively, making it harder to detect
• Simpler protocol design, potentially leading to better performance

Cons of Trojan

• Less widespread adoption compared to Shadowsocks
• Fewer client implementations available across different platforms
• May require more complex server setup, especially for multi-user scenarios

Code Comparison

Shadowsocks (Python implementation):

def encrypt(self, data):
    return self.cipher.encrypt(data)

def decrypt(self, data):
    return self.cipher.decrypt(data)

Trojan (C++ implementation):

void ServerSession::in_recv(const string &data) {
    trojan::AtyParser::parse(data, config.get_atyp_parser());
    // Further processing...
}

The code snippets show that Shadowsocks focuses on simple encryption/decryption operations, while Trojan emphasizes parsing and handling of ATYP (address type) data, reflecting its design to mimic HTTPS traffic more closely.

Both projects aim to provide secure and undetectable internet access, but Trojan's approach of imitating HTTPS traffic may offer better resistance against sophisticated censorship systems. However, Shadowsocks remains more widely adopted and has a larger ecosystem of clients and plugins.

Pros of kcptun

• Utilizes KCP protocol for improved network performance, especially in high-latency or lossy environments
• Offers more advanced congestion control and faster packet retransmission
• Provides additional encryption and obfuscation options

Cons of kcptun

• Higher CPU and bandwidth usage due to the nature of the KCP protocol
• More complex setup and configuration compared to Shadowsocks
• May not be as widely supported or compatible with various platforms

Code Comparison

Shadowsocks (Python implementation):

encryptor = encrypt.Encryptor(key, method)
data = encryptor.encrypt(data)
self._write_to_sock(data, self._remote_sock)

kcptun:

block, _ := kcp.NewAESBlockCrypt(pass)
kcpconn, _ := kcp.NewConn(remoteaddr, block, dataShards, parityShards, conn)
kcpconn.SetStreamMode(true)
kcpconn.SetWriteDelay(false)

Both projects aim to provide secure and efficient data transmission, but they use different approaches. Shadowsocks focuses on simple and lightweight proxying, while kcptun emphasizes improved network performance through the KCP protocol. The code snippets highlight the different encryption methods and connection setup processes used by each project.

Pros of Lantern

• User-friendly interface with easy setup and configuration
• Built-in censorship detection and automatic protocol switching
• Supports peer-to-peer connections for improved performance

Cons of Lantern

• Less customizable than Shadowsocks
• Potential privacy concerns due to centralized infrastructure
• May be easier for censors to detect and block

Code Comparison

Lantern (Go):

func (c *Client) dialDirect(addr string) (net.Conn, error) {
    conn, err := net.DialTimeout("tcp", addr, 10*time.Second)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
    return conn, nil
}

Shadowsocks (Python):

def encrypt(self, data):
    return self.encryptor.encrypt(data)

def decrypt(self, data):
    return self.encryptor.decrypt(data)

The code snippets demonstrate different approaches:

• Lantern focuses on direct TCP connections with timeout handling
• Shadowsocks emphasizes encryption and decryption of data

Both projects aim to provide censorship circumvention, but Lantern offers a more user-friendly approach with automatic features, while Shadowsocks provides greater flexibility and customization options for advanced users. The choice between them depends on the user's technical expertise and specific requirements for bypassing internet restrictions.

Pros of Netch

• More comprehensive networking tool with support for multiple protocols
• User-friendly GUI for easier configuration and management
• Active development with frequent updates and new features

Cons of Netch

• Larger codebase and more complex setup compared to Shadowsocks
• May have higher resource usage due to additional features
• Less focused on a single protocol, potentially sacrificing simplicity

Code Comparison

Shadowsocks (Python implementation):

def encrypt(self, data):
    return self.cipher.encrypt(data)

def decrypt(self, data):
    return self.cipher.decrypt(data)

Netch (C# implementation):

public byte[] Encrypt(byte[] plaintext)
{
    return EncryptorBase.Encrypt(plaintext, _encryptIV);
}

public byte[] Decrypt(byte[] ciphertext)
{
    return EncryptorBase.Decrypt(ciphertext, _decryptIV);
}

Both projects implement encryption and decryption methods, but Netch's implementation is part of a larger, more complex codebase with additional features and protocols.

Shadowsocks focuses on simplicity and efficiency for its specific protocol, while Netch offers a more versatile toolset for various networking needs. The choice between the two depends on the user's requirements for simplicity versus feature richness.