evilginx2
evilginx2 copied to clipboard
Lures and Phishlets UI/UX Feature Suggestion
DO NOT ASK FOR PHISHLETS.
DO NOT ASK FOR HELP CREATING PHISHLETS.
DO NOT ASK TO FIX PHISHLETS.
DO NOT ADVERTISE OR TRY TO SELL PHISHLETS.
EXPECT A BAN OTHERWISE. THANK YOU!
REPORT ONLY BUGS OR FEATURE SUGGESTIONS.
I have a feature suggestion with regards to the UI/UX of the tool. I have noticed that previously we were used to using the phishlets
command to set up phishlets including exposing them to the public. However with the previous release 2.3.0
codenamed phisherman's dream
most of the phishlets commands were moved over to a new command called lures
, however some of the key functionalities that were achieved with phishlets
command still are and work well even with the lures
command handling the same.
For example: when creating/assigning a hostname to a phishlet, you can use both
lures edit <id> hostname <hostname>
command as well as the good oldphishlets hostname <phishlet> <hostname>
command. However the hostname you assign using either of the commands is not transparent or visible to both of the commands for example. the hostname set usingphishlets hostname <phishlet> <hostname>
sub command is different from the hostname set by thelures edit <lure_id> hostname <hostname>
subcommand, when ideally both should affect/manipulate the same hostname storage/variable. Am therefore suggesting to unify the ui/ux by separating the usages of both commands. Letphishlets
commands be used for setting up phishlets like before (this includes changing hostnames and requesting for ssl certificates) and lures command be for creating/managing phishing linkslures
that are generated from the enabled phishlets, this way we can avoid confusion where both commands seem to achieve the same goal but in different ways. Attached here is a screenshot to elaborate further the above.Both commands set different hostnames for the same phishlet
I see, it's a good point - didn't know the phishlets have this option. Anyone wants to take a shot?
I will.