Pros of Metasploit-Framework

• Extensive library of exploits and modules covering a wide range of vulnerabilities
• Active community and regular updates, ensuring up-to-date tools and techniques
• Comprehensive documentation and extensive resources for learning and usage

Cons of Metasploit-Framework

• Larger codebase and more complex setup, potentially overwhelming for beginners
• Broader focus on various systems, not specifically tailored for router exploitation
• Higher resource consumption due to its extensive feature set

Code Comparison

Metasploit-Framework (Ruby):

class MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote
  Rank = ExcellentRanking
  include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient

  def exploit
    # Exploit code here
  end
end

RouterSploit (Python):

class Exploit(exploits.Exploit):
    __info__ = {
        "name": "Router Exploit",
        "description": "Exploit description",
        "authors": ["Author"],
        "references": [],
        "devices": ["Target device"],
    }

    def exploit(self):
        # Exploit code here

Both frameworks provide modular structures for creating exploits, but Metasploit-Framework uses Ruby while RouterSploit uses Python. Metasploit-Framework's structure is more complex, reflecting its broader scope, while RouterSploit's structure is simpler and more focused on router exploitation.

Pros of Nikto

• Broader scope: Scans web servers for multiple vulnerabilities, not limited to routers
• Longer development history: More mature and established tool
• Extensive plugin system: Allows for easy extension of functionality

Cons of Nikto

• Less focused: Not specialized for router exploitation like RouterSploit
• Slower scanning: Generally takes longer to complete scans compared to RouterSploit
• Less frequent updates: Development pace is slower than RouterSploit

Code Comparison

Nikto (Perl):

sub nikto_headers {
    my ($mark) = @_;
    my %headers;
    foreach my $header (split(/\n/, $mark->{'headers'})) {
        $header =~ s/^\s+|\s+$//g;
        my ($key, $value) = split(/:\s*/, $header, 2);
        $headers{lc($key)} = $value if ($key && $value);
    }
    return %headers;
}

RouterSploit (Python):

def check_default(self):
    if self.check_default_args(self.username, self.password):
        self.results.append({
            "name": "Default Credentials",
            "description": "Router has default credentials",
            "severity": "high",
            "data": {
                "username": self.username,
                "password": self.password
            }
        })

Pros of THC-Hydra

• Supports a wider range of protocols and services for brute-force attacks
• More mature project with a longer development history
• Highly customizable with extensive command-line options

Cons of THC-Hydra

• Less focused on router-specific vulnerabilities
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more manual configuration for complex attacks

Code Comparison

THC-Hydra (example usage):

hydra -l admin -P passwords.txt 192.168.1.1 http-post-form "/login:username=^USER^&password=^PASS^:F=Invalid"

RouterSploit (example usage):

use scanners/autopwn
set target 192.168.1.1
run

THC-Hydra is a versatile tool for brute-force attacks across various protocols, while RouterSploit focuses specifically on router vulnerabilities and exploits. THC-Hydra offers more flexibility but requires more manual configuration, whereas RouterSploit provides a more streamlined experience for targeting routers. The code comparison illustrates the difference in approach: THC-Hydra uses command-line arguments for precise control, while RouterSploit employs a modular, interactive console for ease of use.

Pros of Nmap

• Broader scope: Nmap is a versatile network scanner and security auditing tool, while RouterSploit focuses specifically on embedded devices and routers
• Larger community and more frequent updates: Nmap has a more extensive user base and development team
• More comprehensive documentation and resources available

Cons of Nmap

• Steeper learning curve: Nmap's extensive features can be overwhelming for beginners
• Less specialized for router exploitation: RouterSploit offers more targeted tools for router vulnerabilities

Code Comparison

Nmap (basic TCP SYN scan):

nmap -sS 192.168.1.1

RouterSploit (basic router scan):

use scanners/autopwn
set target 192.168.1.1
run

Both tools offer command-line interfaces, but RouterSploit provides a more interactive environment specifically tailored for router exploitation. Nmap's syntax is generally more concise, while RouterSploit uses a module-based approach with more verbose commands.

Pros of Wifiphisher

• Focuses specifically on Wi-Fi attacks, providing a more specialized toolset
• Includes a web interface for easier management and visualization
• Offers social engineering templates for creating convincing phishing scenarios

Cons of Wifiphisher

• Limited to Wi-Fi-based attacks, less versatile than Routersploit
• Requires more setup and dependencies for advanced features
• May have a steeper learning curve for users new to Wi-Fi security

Code Comparison

Wifiphisher (Python):

def start(self):
    self.template = template.TemplateManager(self.template_name)
    self.httpd = http.HTTPServer((NETWORK_GW_IP, PORT), http.HTTPRequestHandler)
    self.httpd.serve_forever()

Routersploit (Python):

def check(self):
    response = self.http_request(
        method="GET",
        path="/cgi-bin/webproc"
    )
    if response and "TP-LINK" in response.text:
        return True
    return False

Both projects use Python and focus on network security, but Wifiphisher emphasizes Wi-Fi attacks with web-based phishing, while Routersploit provides a broader range of router exploitation techniques.

Pros of XSStrike

• Specialized for XSS detection and exploitation
• Advanced payload generation with encoding techniques
• Includes DOM XSS scanning capabilities

Cons of XSStrike

• Limited to XSS vulnerabilities only
• Less frequent updates compared to RouterSploit
• Smaller community and contributor base

Code Comparison

XSStrike (payload generation):

def generate_payloads(occurences, response):
    payloads = []
    for i, occurence in enumerate(occurences):
        context = occurence['context']
        payload = fuzzer(context, occurence['position'], occurence['delimiter'], response)
        payloads.append(payload)
    return payloads

RouterSploit (exploit execution):

def run(self):
    if self.check():
        print_success("Target is vulnerable")
        print_status("Exploiting...")
        self.exploit()
    else:
        print_error("Target is not vulnerable")

Summary

XSStrike focuses solely on XSS vulnerabilities, offering advanced payload generation and DOM XSS scanning. RouterSploit, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive framework for router exploitation, covering various vulnerabilities beyond XSS. XSStrike's specialized nature makes it more suitable for in-depth XSS testing, while RouterSploit provides a broader range of exploitation tools for network devices.