RE: Sources: Full and Partial Coverage
On Tue, 8 May 2012, Steven M. Christey wrote:
: Tim and Brian,
: EDB at least has a field that states whether they've independently
: verified each issue or not, and it is very commonly referenced, so
: that's one reason it has more focus than the others. We do pick up
: Packet Storm on a fairly regular basis. We have not examined whether
: inj3ct0r provides any additional or significant value, or any of the
: dozens of similar vulnerability databases across the Internet. The
: commonality between all these sources increases the workload
: significantly, so it had evolved (at least to the point of this Board
: discussion) to more closely watch Exploit-DB than the others.
That is why I would argue for EDB. They have a vetting process in place,
are quick to remove duplicate or bogus entries, etc. On the other hand, PS
beats them by volume, but also has a high rate of junk entries (i.e.
incorrect, very hard to understand, etc). I haven't done a real comparison
with inj3ct0r, but my quick assessment is there is mostly overlap between
PS / EDB.
Overall, I agree with the board's decision on EDB.