pwnagotchi

Pros of PoisonTap

• Focuses on network exploitation and data exfiltration
• Designed for quick deployment and immediate results
• Can work with a wider range of target devices (not limited to Wi-Fi-capable devices)

Cons of PoisonTap

• Less autonomous; requires more active involvement from the attacker
• Limited to physical access scenarios (needs to be plugged into the target device)
• Lacks the machine learning and optimization features of Pwnagotchi

Code Comparison

PoisonTap (JavaScript):

var headers = {
    "Content-Type": "text/html",
    "Server": "PoisonTap/1.0",
    "Cache-Control": "no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate",
    "Pragma": "no-cache",
    "Expires": "0"
};

Pwnagotchi (Python):

def on_loaded(self):
    logging.info("plugin loaded")
    self.ready = False
    self.status = ''
    self.lock = threading.Lock()
    self.options = dict()

Both projects are focused on network security and penetration testing, but they approach the task differently. PoisonTap is more immediate and requires physical access, while Pwnagotchi is designed for longer-term, autonomous operation. The code snippets show that PoisonTap uses JavaScript and focuses on HTTP headers, while Pwnagotchi is written in Python and emphasizes plugin functionality and threading.

Pros of esp8266_deauther

• Lower hardware cost and easier to obtain components
• More compact and portable device
• Simpler setup and operation for beginners

Cons of esp8266_deauther

• Limited to deauthentication attacks, less versatile
• Lacks machine learning capabilities for optimization
• No built-in display for real-time feedback

Code Comparison

esp8266_deauther:

void sendPacket(uint8_t* packet, uint16_t packetSize, uint8_t ch, uint16_t tries) {
  wifi_set_channel(ch);
  for (int i = 0; i < tries; i++) {
    esp_wifi_80211_tx(WIFI_IF_STA, packet, packetSize, false);
    delay(1);
  }
}

pwnagotchi:

def on_epoch(self, agent, epoch, epoch_data):
    if epoch_data['handshakes'] > 0:
        self.update_reward(epoch_data['handshakes'] * 1.0)
    else:
        self.update_reward(-1.0)

The esp8266_deauther code focuses on sending deauthentication packets, while pwnagotchi implements a reward system for machine learning based on captured handshakes. This highlights the different approaches and capabilities of the two projects.

Pros of Wifiphisher

• More versatile: Can create various types of phishing attacks beyond just Wi-Fi cracking
• User-friendly: Offers a web interface for easier management and attack execution
• Actively maintained: Regular updates and contributions from the community

Cons of Wifiphisher

• Less focused: Not specifically designed for Wi-Fi password cracking like Pwnagotchi
• Requires more setup: Needs additional configuration for different attack scenarios
• Potentially more detectable: Some attack methods may be easier to identify

Code Comparison

Wifiphisher (Python):

def start(self):
    self.template.merge_interface = self.interface
    self.template.merge_network_manager = self.network_manager
    self.template.merge_extensions = self.extensions

Pwnagotchi (Python):

def on_loaded(self):
    logging.info("pwnagotchi %s@%s (v%s)" % (pwnagotchi.name(), self.config['main']['hostname'], pwnagotchi.__version__))
    self.mode = Mode(self.config['main']['plugins'])

Both projects use Python, but Wifiphisher focuses on template-based attacks, while Pwnagotchi emphasizes AI-driven Wi-Fi cracking. Wifiphisher's code shows its modular approach to different attack scenarios, whereas Pwnagotchi's code highlights its focus on plugin-based functionality and machine learning integration.

Pros of eaphammer

• Specialized tool for targeted Wi-Fi attacks and auditing
• Supports advanced features like hostile portal attacks and KARMA attacks
• More focused on enterprise Wi-Fi security testing

Cons of eaphammer

• Less automated and user-friendly compared to Pwnagotchi
• Requires more manual configuration and expertise to use effectively
• Limited to Wi-Fi attacks, while Pwnagotchi has broader capabilities

Code Comparison

eaphammer (Python):

def hostile_portal():
    print('[*] Starting hostile portal...')
    subprocess.Popen(['python', 'core/hostile_portal.py'])
    time.sleep(2)

Pwnagotchi (Python):

def on_loaded(agent):
    logging.info("ai loaded")
    agent.set('agent.epoch', agent.epoch)
    agent.set('agent.born', agent.config['main']['born'])

Both projects use Python, but their code structures differ significantly due to their distinct purposes. eaphammer focuses on specific Wi-Fi attack functions, while Pwnagotchi implements a more complex AI-driven system for automated Wi-Fi cracking and learning.

eaphammer is better suited for security professionals conducting targeted Wi-Fi audits, while Pwnagotchi offers a more accessible and automated approach to Wi-Fi security exploration and learning.

Pros of WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated

• More comprehensive suite of wireless network attack tools
• Graphical user interface for easier use by less technical users
• Supports a wider range of attack vectors and network manipulation techniques

Cons of WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated

• No longer actively maintained (deprecated)
• Less focused on machine learning and AI-driven attacks
• Requires more manual intervention and configuration

Code Comparison

WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated:

class Pumpkin(QMainWindow):
    def __init__(self, parent=None):
        super(Pumpkin, self).__init__(parent)
        self.MainControl = []
        self.Interfaces = Refactor.get_interfaces()
        self.InitialMehtod = frm_Settings()

Pwnagotchi:

class Agent(object):
    def __init__(self, view, config):
        self.view = view
        self.config = config
        self.running = False
        self.mode = 'auto'

The WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated code snippet shows a GUI-based approach with QMainWindow, while Pwnagotchi's code demonstrates a more streamlined, object-oriented structure focused on the core agent functionality. WiFi-Pumpkin-deprecated appears to have a broader scope with multiple interfaces and settings, whereas Pwnagotchi is more specialized in its purpose.