The dominance of Metasploit

Why do we prefer Metasploit to manual exploitation techniques? Is this because of a hacker-like terminal that gives a pro look, or is there a different reason? Metasploit is a preferable choice when compared to traditional manual techniques because of certain factors that are discussed in the following sections.

Open source

One of the top reasons why one should go with Metasploit is because it is open source and actively developed. Various other highly paid tools exist for carrying out penetration testing. However, Metasploit allows its users to access its source code and add their custom modules. The pro version of Metasploit is chargeable, but for the sake of learning, the community edition is mostly preferred.

Support for testing large networks and easy naming conventions

It is easy to use Metasploit. However, here, ease of use refers to easy naming conventions of the commands. Metasploit offers great ease while conducting a large network penetration test. Consider a scenario where we need to test a network with 200 systems. Instead of testing each system one after the other, Metasploit offers to test the entire range automatically. Using parameters such as subnet and Classless Inter Domain Routing (CIDR) values, Metasploit tests all the systems in order to exploit the vulnerability, whereas in a manual exploitation process, we might need to launch the exploits manually onto 200 systems. Therefore, Metasploit saves an ample amount of time and energy.

Smart payload generation and switching mechanism

Most importantly, switching between payloads in Metasploit is easy. Metasploit provides quick access to change payloads using the set payload command. Therefore, changing the meterpreter or a shell-based access into a more specific operation, such as adding a user and getting the remote desktop access, becomes easy. Generating shell code to use in manual exploits also becomes easy by using the msfpayload application from the command line.

Cleaner exits

Metasploit is also responsible for making a much cleaner exit from the systems it has compromised. A custom-coded exploit, on the other hand, can crash the system while exiting its operations. This is really an important factor in cases where we know that the service will not restart immediately.

Consider a scenario where we have compromised a web server and while we were making an exit, the exploited application crashes. The scheduled maintenance time for the server is left over with 50 days time. So, what do we do? Wait for the next 50 odd days for the service to come up again so that we can exploit it again? Moreover, what if the service comes back after getting patched? We could only end up kicking ourselves. This also shows a clear sign of poor penetration testing skills. Therefore, a better approach would be to use the Metasploit framework, which is known for making much cleaner exits as well as offer tons of post-exploitation functions such as persistence that can help maintaining a permanent access to the server.

The GUI environment

Metasploit offers a nice GUI and third-party interfaces such as Armitage. These interfaces tend to ease the penetration testing projects by offering services such as easy-to-switch workspaces, vulnerability management on the fly, and functions at a click of a button. We will discuss these environments more in the latter chapters of this book.