# Bridging the Gap: A Survey and Classification of Research-Informed Ethical Hacking Tools
## 7 Conclusions and Future Work  
Addressing emerging cyber security threats requires developing Ethical Hacking tools to identify vulnerabilities in networks, systems, and applications. While practitioners design most EH tools for immediate use in the industry, academic researchers have also significantly contributed to developing security tools. However, there is a noticeable gap in awareness among practitioners about academic contributions in this domain. This paper evaluates 100 research-informed tools, examining aspects such as licensing, release dates, source code availability, development activity, and peer review status. These tools are then aligned with established frameworks like PTES, the Mitre ATT&CK framework, CyBOK, and ACM CCS. Key findings indicate that 96% of these tools originate from peer-reviewed research, with 59% having their source code readily accessible on GitHub. Activity analysis shows that 90% of projects were active around their publication year, yet activity dwindles significantly within 1.5 years post-release. Under the PTES framework classification, most tools are designed for vulnerability analysis, whereas threat modelling tools are relatively few. The CyBOK and ACM CCS classifications emphasise tools for detecting vulnerabilities, particularly under the _Software and Platform Security_ and _Security And Privacy_ categories, respectively. For the Mitre ATT&CK framework, most tools primarily focus on reconnaissance, highlighting the vital role of information gathering in identifying network and system details. Future directions involve experimental evaluations and comparisons of specific tools, integration of existing practitioner tools, and exploration of using large language models in penetration testing. This approach aims to bridge the gap between industry and academia, enhancing the development and effectiveness of Ethical Hacking tools. The supporting information, containing the review of the research-informed EH tools covered in this survey, can be downloaded at [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcp4030021/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcp4030021/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcp4030021/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcp4030021/s1)). Refs [165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171] are cited in Supplementary Materials. Conceptualization, P.M.; methodology, P.M. ; software, P.M.; validation, P.M. and L.H. ; formal analysis, P.M.; investigation, P.M., L.G., L.H, C.O and M.M. ; resources, P.M.; data curation, P.M and L.H. ; writing--original draft preparation, P.M., L.G., L.H, C.O and M.M. ; writing--review and editing, P.M., L.G., L.H, C.O and M.M. ; visualization, P.M., L.G., and C.O. ; project administration, P.M., L.G., and C.O. ; funding acquisition, N/A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research received no external funding. No new data was created, apart from the one presented in this paper and the supplementary material. The authors express their gratitude to [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], and the Advanced Practice students of the MSc Cybersecurity course at Teesside University for engaging in constructive discussions and recommending certain tools for inclusion in this survey. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: