Pros of testssl.sh

• Runs locally without relying on external services
• More comprehensive tests, including cipher suites and protocol support
• Highly customizable with numerous command-line options

Cons of testssl.sh

• Requires local installation and dependencies
• May be more complex for casual users
• Results can be more technical and harder to interpret

Code Comparison

testssl.sh:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
# testssl.sh - Testing TLS/SSL encryption
TESTSSL_INSTALL_DIR="${TESTSSL_INSTALL_DIR:-"$(dirname "$0")"}"
OPENSSL="${OPENSSL:-openssl}"
HEXDUMP="${HEXDUMP:-hexdump}"

ssllabs-scan:

package main

import (
    "fmt"
    "os"
    "github.com/ssllabs/ssllabs-scan/v3"
)

func main() {
    // Main logic here
}

The code snippets show that testssl.sh is written in Bash, making it easily portable and modifiable, while ssllabs-scan is written in Go, potentially offering better performance but requiring compilation.

Pros of sslyze

• Written in Python, making it more accessible for scripting and integration
• Offers more detailed and customizable scanning options
• Actively maintained with regular updates and new features

Cons of sslyze

• May require more setup and configuration compared to ssllabs-scan
• Can be slower for scanning multiple hosts due to its comprehensive approach
• Lacks the cloud-based infrastructure and global perspective of SSL Labs

Code Comparison

sslyze:

from sslyze import ServerNetworkLocationViaDirectConnection, ServerConnectivityTester, Scanner
from sslyze.plugins.certificate_info.implementation import CertificateInfoScanResult

server_location = ServerNetworkLocationViaDirectConnection("example.com", 443)
server_info = ServerConnectivityTester().perform(server_location)
scanner = Scanner()
scan_result = scanner.run_scan_command(server_info, CertificateInfoScanResult)

ssllabs-scan:

./ssllabs-scan -grade -usecache example.com

The sslyze code snippet demonstrates its more programmatic approach, allowing for fine-grained control over the scanning process. In contrast, ssllabs-scan offers a simpler command-line interface, making it easier to use for quick assessments but less flexible for custom integrations.

Pros of sslscan

• Lightweight and fast, suitable for quick scans
• Supports scanning multiple hosts simultaneously
• Can be easily integrated into automated testing pipelines

Cons of sslscan

• Less comprehensive analysis compared to ssllabs-scan
• May not detect some advanced vulnerabilities or misconfigurations
• Limited reporting options and customization

Code comparison

sslscan:

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    struct sslCheckOptions options;
    memset(&options, 0, sizeof(struct sslCheckOptions));
    options.host = NULL;
    options.port = 0;

ssllabs-scan:

func main() {
    var conf config
    flag.StringVar(&conf.apiURL, "api", "https://api.ssllabs.com/api/v3", "API entry point")
    flag.StringVar(&conf.grade, "grade", "", "Minimum grade")
    flag.BoolVar(&conf.usecache, "usecache", false, "Use cached results (if available)")

The code snippets show that sslscan is written in C, while ssllabs-scan is written in Go. sslscan's main function focuses on initializing options for the SSL check, while ssllabs-scan's main function sets up configuration flags for interacting with the SSL Labs API.

Pros of htrace.sh

• Lightweight and portable, written in Bash
• Provides detailed HTTP/HTTPS analysis beyond SSL/TLS
• Offers customizable output formats and verbosity levels

Cons of htrace.sh

• Less comprehensive SSL/TLS analysis compared to ssllabs-scan
• May require additional dependencies for full functionality
• Limited to command-line interface, lacking GUI options

Code Comparison

htrace.sh:

_get_http_headers() {
  local _host="$1"
  local _port="$2"
  local _ssl="$3"
  local _cmd=""
  local _timeout="$_timeout"

ssllabs-scan:

func newCheck() *Check {
	c := &Check{
		Bundle:         &Bundle{},
		Certs:          []*x509.Certificate{},
		Chains:         [][]*x509.Certificate{},
		Protocols:      []*Protocol{},
		Suites:         []*Suite{},
		ServerName:     "",

Key Differences

• htrace.sh focuses on HTTP/HTTPS analysis with some SSL/TLS capabilities
• ssllabs-scan specializes in comprehensive SSL/TLS assessment
• htrace.sh is written in Bash, while ssllabs-scan is written in Go
• ssllabs-scan leverages Qualys SSL Labs API for in-depth SSL/TLS analysis
• htrace.sh offers more flexibility for general web server diagnostics

Both tools serve different purposes, with htrace.sh being more versatile for general HTTP/HTTPS diagnostics and ssllabs-scan excelling in detailed SSL/TLS analysis.

Pros of nmap

• Broader functionality: Nmap is a comprehensive network scanning and discovery tool, offering a wide range of features beyond SSL/TLS analysis
• Active community: Nmap has a large, active community contributing to its development and providing support
• Extensibility: Supports scripting engine (NSE) for custom functionality

Cons of nmap

• Steeper learning curve: Nmap's extensive features can be overwhelming for beginners
• Less specialized: While capable of SSL/TLS scanning, it's not as focused or in-depth as ssllabs-scan for this specific task

Code comparison

ssllabs-scan:

func analyzeHost(host string, startNew bool, fromCache string, maxAge int, ignoreMismatch bool, insecure bool) (*HostData, error) {
    // SSL Labs-specific API calls and analysis
}

nmap:

local shortport = require "shortport"
local sslcert = require "sslcert"
local stdnse = require "stdnse"

portrule = shortport.ssl

action = function(host, port)
    -- Nmap SSL/TLS scanning logic
end

The code snippets illustrate the different approaches:

• ssllabs-scan uses Go and focuses on interacting with SSL Labs API
• nmap uses Lua scripting for SSL/TLS scanning as part of its broader functionality

Both tools are valuable for security assessments, with ssllabs-scan specializing in SSL/TLS analysis and nmap offering a more comprehensive network scanning solution.