BeEF Reviews & Ratings

4.6/5

“Strong for Security Awareness Training”

I used BeEF in training sessions, and the visual demonstration of browser exploitation really made executives pay attention. It’s a strong tool for security awareness.

Pros : Excellent for showing non-technical stakeholders what a compromised browser looks like.

Cons : Requires careful setup to avoid false positives.

Switched from : Social-Engineer Toolkit (SET)

Reason to switch : SET is good for phishing and social engineering, but BeEF made browser exploitation more interactive and direct, which fit my needs better.

4.5/5

“Unique Tool for Browser Exploitation Testing”

As a penetration tester, I’ve used many tools, but BeEF shines in simulating browser-based attacks. It allowed me to demonstrate risks to clients that weren’t obvious through standard network scans.

Pros : BeEF is excellent at showing real-world browser exploitation risks. It integrates well with penetration tests and is lightweight.

Cons : The interface feels dated and the documentation can be overwhelming for beginners.

Switched from : Burp Suite

Reason to switch : While Burp Suite is fantastic for web application testing, it doesn’t focus on persistent browser exploitation. I switched to BeEF because it offered specialized browser attack vectors that Burp Suite lacked.

4.5/5

“Great for Demonstrating Client-Side Security Risks”

BeEF gave me a way to show clients how even modern browsers can be exploited if not secured. It’s a strong educational tool for security awareness sessions.

Pros : Perfect for red team engagements. It highlights the human/browser weakness in security chains.

Cons : Can be resource-intensive if running large-scale simulations.

Switched from : OWASP ZAP

Reason to switch : OWASP ZAP is a great open-source scanner, but I needed a framework that went deeper into browser exploit chains. BeEF gave me that capability.

4.5/5

“Eye-Opening Tool for Clients”

BeEF helped me show clients how easily their employees’ browsers could be compromised. This visual proof made it easier to push for better patching policies.

Pros : Helps demonstrate practical risk instead of theoretical.

Cons : Outdated modules can frustrate new users.

Switched from : Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner

Reason to switch : Acunetix is strong for web scanning, but I needed browser-specific exploitation tests that Acunetix couldn’t provide.

4.3/5

“Lightweight but Powerful Security Tool”

I used BeEF to run controlled simulations against test environments and it clearly demonstrated gaps in client-side defenses. The simplicity of its hook system is brilliant.

Pros : Easy to deploy on Kali Linux, straightforward hook mechanism, and effective payloads.

Cons : Some payloads are outdated and don’t work on modern browsers.

Switched from : Cobalt Strike

Reason to switch : Cobalt Strike is powerful for command and control, but I needed something focused purely on browsers. BeEF gave me that narrow but crucial focus.

4.3/5

“A Specialist Tool in My Pentest Arsenal”

BeEF complements my other pentesting tools by focusing solely on client browsers. It helps uncover issues that network-based tools usually miss.

Pros : Unique angle on browser exploitation, works well in tandem with other frameworks.

Cons : Not a standalone solution; best when combined with other tools.

Switched from : Nikito

Reason to switch : Nikto is useful for server-side scanning, but it doesn’t deal with client browsers. I switched to BeEF to cover that gap.

4.3/5

“Great for Red Team Browser Hooking”

BeEF gave me the ability to hook browsers during engagements and then escalate attacks in a controlled lab setting. It’s invaluable when used responsibly.

Pros : Flexible payload options, strong integration possibilities, and good reporting.

Cons : Some exploits need manual tweaking for effectiveness.

Switched from : Immunity CANVAS

Reason to switch : CANVAS provides a broad range of exploits, but BeEF’s specialization in browsers made it the better fit for my client-side testing.

4.3/5

“Essential for Red Team Exercises”

During red team operations, BeEF allowed my team to simulate real-world attack paths via browsers, something traditional penetration testing frameworks didn’t fully provide.

Pros : Realistic simulations, solid integration with Metasploit, and good community support.

Cons : Steep learning curve for first-time users.

Switched from : Metasploit

Reason to switch : Metasploit is amazing for exploitation in general, but BeEF is much stronger when it comes to browser-specific attack scenarios.

4.3/5

“A Must-Have for Browser Security Testing”

BeEF is now part of every assessment I run that involves client-side vectors. It adds depth to my reporting and gives clients actionable insights.

Pros : Specialized, community-supported, and integrates into penetration testing workflows.

Cons : Limited scope beyond browsers.

Switched from : Burp Suite Pro

Reason to switch : Burp Suite Pro remains in my toolkit, but I switched to BeEF for browser exploitation scenarios since Burp doesn’t cover them in the same way.

4.3/5

“Great for Research and Learning”

BeEF helped me as a cybersecurity student to learn about browser vulnerabilities. Its open-source nature makes it a great learning platform.

Pros : Open source, customizable, and highly educational.

Cons : Requires strong security knowledge to use effectively.

Switched from : Netsparker

Reason to switch : Netsparker is more automated, but I wanted a tool where I could get hands-on with browser exploit development. BeEF was perfect for that.