Pros of httpx

• More feature-rich, offering additional functionality like title extraction, status code checking, and content type detection
• Faster performance, especially for large-scale scans
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of httpx

• More complex to use, with a steeper learning curve
• Larger binary size and higher resource consumption
• May produce more verbose output, requiring additional filtering

Code Comparison

httprobe:

cat domains.txt | httprobe

httpx:

cat domains.txt | httpx -silent

Both tools can be used in a similar manner for basic probing. However, httpx offers more advanced options:

cat domains.txt | httpx -silent -title -status-code -content-type

This command demonstrates httpx's additional features, providing more detailed information about the target domains.

While httprobe is simpler and more straightforward, httpx offers greater flexibility and functionality at the cost of increased complexity. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with the tools.

Pros of Aquatone

• More comprehensive functionality, including web screenshot capture and reporting
• Supports multiple input formats (e.g., URLs, IP addresses, CIDR ranges)
• Generates visual HTML reports for easy analysis

Cons of Aquatone

• Slower execution due to additional features and processing
• More complex setup and dependencies
• Larger codebase, potentially harder to maintain or customize

Code Comparison

Httprobe (Go):

func main() {
    sc := bufio.NewScanner(os.Stdin)
    for sc.Scan() {
        result := probe(sc.Text())
        fmt.Println(result)
    }
}

Aquatone (Ruby):

def run
  banner
  parse_options
  setup_http_client

  if @options[:domain]
    run_domain_scan
  elsif @options[:hosts]
    run_host_scan
  end
end

Summary

Httprobe is a lightweight, fast tool focused solely on probing HTTP and HTTPS services. It's simple to use and efficient for basic reconnaissance. Aquatone, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive suite of features, including web screenshots and HTML reporting. While Aquatone provides more detailed results, it comes at the cost of increased complexity and slower execution. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the user and the scope of the reconnaissance task at hand.

Pros of gobuster

• More versatile with multiple modes (DNS, vhost, directory/file enumeration)
• Supports custom wordlists and pattern-based brute-forcing
• Offers more advanced filtering and output options

Cons of gobuster

• More complex to use due to numerous options and modes
• Slower for simple HTTP probing tasks compared to httprobe
• Requires more system resources for large-scale scans

Code comparison

httprobe:

for result := range in {
    if resp, err := probeHTTP(result); err == nil {
        out <- resp
    }
}

gobuster:

for _, word := range wordlist {
    url := fmt.Sprintf("%s%s", baseURL, word)
    if resp, err := http.Get(url); err == nil {
        if resp.StatusCode == 200 {
            results <- url
        }
    }
}

Summary

httprobe is a lightweight tool focused on fast HTTP/HTTPS probing, ideal for quick checks on large lists of domains. gobuster offers more comprehensive functionality for various enumeration tasks but may be overkill for simple probing. The choice between them depends on the specific use case and required features.

Pros of ffuf

• More versatile: Can be used for directory brute-forcing, parameter fuzzing, and various other web application testing tasks
• Highly customizable: Offers numerous options for fine-tuning requests, handling responses, and filtering results
• Faster execution: Utilizes Go's concurrency features for improved performance on large-scale scans

Cons of ffuf

• Steeper learning curve: Requires more configuration and understanding of options to use effectively
• Potentially overwhelming for simple probing tasks: May be overkill for basic HTTP/HTTPS endpoint discovery

Code comparison

httprobe:

for result := range in {
    if resp, err := probeHTTP(result); err == nil {
        out <- resp
    }
}

ffuf:

for scanner.Scan() {
    if err := job.AddTarget(scanner.Text()); err != nil {
        errs <- err
    }
}

Summary

While httprobe is focused on simple HTTP/HTTPS probing, ffuf is a more comprehensive web fuzzing tool. httprobe excels in straightforward endpoint discovery, while ffuf offers greater flexibility for various web application testing scenarios. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the task at hand and the user's familiarity with the tools.

Pros of dirsearch

• More comprehensive directory and file enumeration
• Supports multiple HTTP methods (GET, POST, HEAD, etc.)
• Customizable wordlists and extensive configuration options

Cons of dirsearch

• Slower execution compared to httprobe's focused probing
• More complex setup and usage
• Potentially noisier, generating more traffic to target servers

Code Comparison

dirsearch:

def check_url(url):
    try:
        tester = URLTester(url)
        return tester.test()
    except Exception as e:
        return False

httprobe:

func probeHttp(domain string) (string, error) {
    resp, err := http.Get("http://" + domain)
    if err != nil {
        return "", err
    }
    defer resp.Body.Close()
    return resp.Request.URL.String(), nil
}

dirsearch is a more feature-rich tool for directory and file enumeration, while httprobe focuses on efficiently probing for live web servers. dirsearch offers greater flexibility and depth in scanning, but at the cost of speed and simplicity. httprobe excels in quickly identifying active HTTP/HTTPS services, making it ideal for initial reconnaissance. The code snippets highlight the different approaches: dirsearch uses a more complex URLTester object, while httprobe employs a straightforward HTTP GET request.