seeker

Pros of Sherlock

• Broader scope: Searches for usernames across 300+ websites
• More active development: Frequent updates and contributions
• Extensive documentation and usage instructions

Cons of Sherlock

• Slower execution due to checking multiple sites
• May produce false positives in some cases
• Requires more dependencies and setup

Code Comparison

Sherlock (Python):

def sherlock(username):
    for site in sites:
        response = requests.get(f"{site.url}/{username}")
        if response.status_code == 200:
            print(f"Found on {site.name}")

Seeker (JavaScript):

function getLocation() {
    if (navigator.geolocation) {
        navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition(showPosition);
    } else {
        console.log("Geolocation is not supported by this browser.");
    }
}

Key Differences

Sherlock focuses on username searches across multiple platforms, while Seeker is primarily designed for geolocation tracking. Sherlock is written in Python and has a larger community, whereas Seeker is JavaScript-based and more specialized in its functionality.

Sherlock is better suited for broad online presence investigations, while Seeker excels in targeted geolocation tracking scenarios. The choice between the two depends on the specific use case and required functionality.

Pros of PhoneInfoga

• More comprehensive phone number analysis, including carrier and location data
• Supports multiple data sources and APIs for information gathering
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of PhoneInfoga

• Focused solely on phone number reconnaissance, less versatile than Seeker
• Requires API keys for some features, potentially limiting free usage
• More complex setup and configuration compared to Seeker

Code Comparison

PhoneInfoga (Go):

func (s *Scanner) localScan(number *Number) (*Results, error) {
    results := NewResults(number)
    s.performLocalScan(number, results)
    return results, nil
}

Seeker (Python):

def get_location():
    global latitude, longitude
    url = 'https://location.services.mozilla.com/v1/geolocate?key=' + lsession
    data = requests.get(url).json()
    latitude = data['location']['lat']
    longitude = data['location']['lng']

PhoneInfoga focuses on phone number analysis using various APIs and data sources, while Seeker is designed for geolocation tracking. PhoneInfoga is written in Go and offers more comprehensive phone-related information, whereas Seeker is a Python-based tool that provides real-time location data. The code snippets demonstrate their different approaches: PhoneInfoga performs local scans on phone numbers, while Seeker retrieves geolocation data from external services.

Pros of theHarvester

• More comprehensive information gathering tool, covering a wider range of sources
• Actively maintained with regular updates and contributions
• Supports multiple output formats (HTML, XML, JSON)

Cons of theHarvester

• More complex to use, requiring more configuration and setup
• Slower execution due to the breadth of sources it queries
• May produce more false positives or irrelevant results

Code Comparison

theHarvester:

from theHarvester.discovery import *
from theHarvester.discovery.constants import *
search = googlesearch.search_google(word, limit, start)
search.process()
emails = search.get_emails()

Seeker:

def get_location():
    global latitude, longitude
    req = requests.get(f'https://api.ipapi.com/api/{ip}?access_key={access_key}')
    data = req.json()
    latitude = data['latitude']
    longitude = data['longitude']

Summary

theHarvester is a more comprehensive tool for information gathering, offering a wider range of sources and output formats. However, it's more complex to use and may produce more irrelevant results. Seeker, on the other hand, focuses specifically on geolocation tracking, making it simpler and more targeted for that specific use case. The code comparison shows theHarvester's focus on email discovery from various sources, while Seeker emphasizes geolocation data retrieval.

Pros of Spiderfoot

• More comprehensive OSINT tool with a wider range of modules and data sources
• Offers a web-based GUI for easier visualization and interaction
• Supports automation and scheduling of scans

Cons of Spiderfoot

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires more system resources due to its extensive functionality
• Steeper learning curve for new users

Code Comparison

Seeker (Python):

def get_location():
    global latitude, longitude
    if args.location:
        location = args.location.split(',')
        latitude = location[0]
        longitude = location[1]
    else:
        latitude = input('\n' + G + '[+]' + C + ' Enter Latitude : ' + W)
        longitude = input(G + '[+]' + C + ' Enter Longitude : ' + W)

Spiderfoot (Python):

def scanTarget(self, target):
    # Normalize the target
    targetType = SpiderFootHelpers.targetTypeFromString(target)
    if targetType is None:
        self.status("Invalid target type. Could not recognize it as a valid target type.")
        return
    t = SpiderFootTarget(target, targetType)
    self.target = t

Both projects are written in Python, but Spiderfoot's codebase is more extensive and modular. Seeker focuses on geolocation tracking, while Spiderfoot offers a broader range of OSINT capabilities.

Pros of Maigret

• Supports a much larger number of websites and platforms (2000+)
• More advanced search capabilities, including custom site parsing
• Actively maintained with frequent updates

Cons of Maigret

• More complex setup and usage compared to Seeker
• Requires more system resources due to its extensive functionality
• May produce more false positives due to its broad search scope

Code Comparison

Seeker (Python):

def get_location():
    global latitude, longitude
    if args.lhost and args.lport:
        pass
    else:
        print('\n' + R + '[-]' + C + ' Getting Location Information...' + W + '\n')
        try:
            response = requests.get('https://ipapi.co/json/')
            result = response.json()
            latitude = result['latitude']
            longitude = result['longitude']
        except:
            latitude = 0
            longitude = 0

Maigret (Python):

async def extract_ids_from_url(url: str) -> List[str]:
    try:
        r = await get_response(url)
        if r:
            return re.findall(r'(?:^|/)(?P<id>[^/]+)/?$', r.url)
    except Exception as e:
        print(f'Error while fetching {url}: {e}')
    return []

The code snippets show that Seeker focuses on geolocation, while Maigret emphasizes ID extraction from URLs, reflecting their different purposes and functionalities.

Pros of awesome-osint

• Comprehensive collection of OSINT tools and resources
• Well-organized into categories for easy navigation
• Regularly updated with new tools and information

Cons of awesome-osint

• Not a standalone tool, requires additional setup for each resource
• May overwhelm users with the sheer number of options
• Lacks specific functionality, serving more as a directory

Code comparison

While a direct code comparison isn't relevant due to the nature of these repositories, here's a brief overview of their structure:

awesome-osint:

## Table of Contents
- [General Search](#general-search)
- [Main National Search Engines](#main-national-search-engines)
- [Meta Search](#meta-search)
...

seeker:

#!/usr/bin/env python3
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

from __future__ import print_function
import os
import sys
import time
...

Seeker is a focused Python tool for geolocation, while awesome-osint is a curated list of OSINT resources in Markdown format. The code structures reflect their different purposes and implementations.