Pros of ttyd

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Supports multiple authentication methods (Basic Auth, SSL/TLS)
• Offers a wider range of customization options and command-line flags

Cons of ttyd

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to maintain
• Higher system requirements due to additional features

Code Comparison

ttyd:

static void check_origin(struct lws *wsi) {
    int origin_len = lws_hdr_total_length(wsi, WSI_TOKEN_ORIGIN);
    char buf[origin_len + 1];
    memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf));
    int len = lws_hdr_copy(wsi, buf, sizeof(buf), WSI_TOKEN_ORIGIN);
    if (len > 0) {
        // Origin validation logic
    }
}

rtty:

static void on_ws_receive(struct pty_session *session, void *data, size_t len)
{
    if (session->state == STATE_NORMAL) {
        write(session->pty, data, len);
    } else if (session->state == STATE_WAIT_PASSWD) {
        // Password handling logic
    }
}

Both projects aim to provide web-based terminal access, but ttyd offers more features and customization options at the cost of increased complexity. rtty focuses on simplicity and ease of use, making it potentially more suitable for resource-constrained environments or simpler use cases. The code snippets demonstrate different approaches to handling WebSocket connections and data processing, reflecting the projects' distinct design philosophies.

Pros of GoTTY

• Web-based terminal access without additional client software
• Supports custom command execution and URL parameters
• Easy to set up and use with minimal configuration

Cons of GoTTY

• Less focus on security features compared to RTTY
• Limited to terminal access, while RTTY offers file transfer capabilities
• May have higher resource usage due to web-based nature

Code Comparison

RTTY (C):

static void on_ws_handshake_done(struct mg_connection *nc)
{
    struct session *s = (struct session *)nc->user_data;
    s->ws_handshake_done = true;
    ev_timer_stop(s->loop, &s->tmr);
}

GoTTY (Go):

func (server *Server) handleWS(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    conn, err := server.upgrader.Upgrade(w, r, nil)
    if err != nil {
        log.Print("Failed to upgrade connection: " + err.Error())
        return
    }
    defer conn.Close()
}

Both projects aim to provide remote terminal access, but RTTY focuses on embedded systems and offers more security features, while GoTTY provides a simpler web-based solution. RTTY is written in C, making it more suitable for resource-constrained environments, while GoTTY is written in Go, offering easier deployment and cross-platform compatibility.

Pros of Chisel

• More versatile, supporting various protocols (HTTP, SOCKS5, TCP) and tunneling options
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux) with easy installation
• Active development and larger community support

Cons of Chisel

• More complex setup and configuration compared to RTTY
• Requires both client and server components to be installed and configured
• May have higher resource usage due to its broader feature set

Code Comparison

RTTY (server-side):

int rtty_start(struct rtty *rtty)
{
    ev_io_init(&rtty->ior, rtty_read_cb, rtty->sock.fd, EV_READ);
    ev_io_start(rtty->loop, &rtty->ior);
    return 0;
}

Chisel (server-side):

func (s *Server) Start() error {
    if s.listener != nil {
        return errors.New("server already running")
    }
    l, err := net.Listen("tcp", s.config.Host)
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    s.listener = l
    return s.run()
}

Both projects aim to provide remote access solutions, but Chisel offers a more comprehensive set of features for tunneling and proxying, while RTTY focuses primarily on remote terminal access. Chisel's flexibility comes at the cost of increased complexity, while RTTY provides a simpler, more focused solution for its specific use case.

Pros of ngrok

• More widely adopted and battle-tested in production environments
• Offers a user-friendly web interface for managing tunnels and inspecting traffic
• Provides additional features like custom subdomains and TLS encryption

Cons of ngrok

• Closed-source software with limited customization options
• Requires a paid subscription for advanced features and higher usage limits
• May have potential privacy concerns due to traffic routing through third-party servers

Code Comparison

rtty:

int rtty_start(struct rtty *rtty)
{
    ev_io_init(&rtty->ior, rtty_read_cb, rtty->sock.fd, EV_READ);
    ev_io_start(rtty->loop, &rtty->ior);
    return 0;
}

ngrok:

func (c *Tunnel) Start() error {
    c.Lock()
    defer c.Unlock()
    return c.start()
}

Summary

rtty is an open-source, lightweight remote terminal solution, while ngrok is a more feature-rich, closed-source tunneling service. rtty offers greater flexibility and customization but may require more setup and technical expertise. ngrok provides a more user-friendly experience with additional features but comes with potential privacy concerns and usage limitations. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, technical expertise, and privacy considerations.

Pros of Teleport

• More comprehensive security features, including SSO, RBAC, and audit logging
• Supports multiple protocols (SSH, Kubernetes, databases, web apps)
• Scalable for enterprise environments

Cons of Teleport

• More complex setup and configuration
• Higher resource requirements
• Steeper learning curve for users and administrators

Code Comparison

Teleport (Go):

func (s *Server) Start() error {
    s.Lock()
    defer s.Unlock()
    if s.started {
        return trace.AlreadyExists("server is already started")
    }
    s.started = true
    go s.serve()
    return nil
}

RTTY (C):

static void on_client_close(struct lws *wsi)
{
    struct tty_client *client = lws_wsi_user(wsi);
    if (client) {
        LIST_REMOVE(client, list);
        free(client);
    }
}

Key Differences

• Teleport is written in Go, while RTTY is written in C
• Teleport offers a more feature-rich solution for secure access management
• RTTY focuses specifically on remote terminal access over the web
• Teleport has a larger codebase and community, with more frequent updates
• RTTY is lighter-weight and easier to set up for simple remote terminal needs