Categorization

[sundhaug92]

As payloads are starting to come in but before there are too many, I think it's time to consider categorizing the payloads. According to the docs, only one category has been specifically mentioned - Prank. To me this implies that the categories are atleast partially based on the bashbunny-categories. Based on this, I propose that we use the existing bashbunny categories with the following additions for things the packetsquirrel can do that the bashbunny can't:
 

• interception
• sniffing
• remote-access
• vpn? (This could be part of remote-access, given that there probably aren't gonna be that many ways to do it other than ovpn and autossh)

For the out of box payloads, I've proposed categories in PR#1, however I'd like some input before it's merged and payloads are moved into folders. 

[thehappydinoa]

I think that is perfect. 

[Sparctor]

Decades of programming have taught me it is better to let the structure evolve to reflect what is actually there. Otherwise we end up with some useless categories and some overcrowded.

OTOH, if there are payloads we really want to see, an empty category might motivate somebody to create one.

[sundhaug92]

7 hours ago, Sparctor said:

Decades of programming have taught me it is better to let the structure evolve to reflect what is actually there. Otherwise we end up with some useless categories and some overcrowded.

OTOH, if there are payloads we really want to see, an empty category might motivate somebody to create one.

However, structure should be predictable and sharing it the bashbunny as much as possible makes it easier to find things and know where to put things, it ensures order

Edited October 26, 2017 by sundhaug92