Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Readme: Relation to govulncheck #271

Open
falco467 opened this issue Oct 11, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Readme: Relation to govulncheck #271

falco467 opened this issue Oct 11, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@falco467
Copy link

  • What are you trying to do?
    A new tool was released by go developers this month:

https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/vuln/cmd/govulncheck

And I'm trying to decide how this tool is different from Nancy and if I should use both of them, or if one fully replaces the other?

  • What feature or behavior is this required for?
    Reduced time and complexity of CI-chain.

  • How could we solve this issue? (Not knowing is okay!)
    Could you include a section in your readme how Nancy differs from the standard-tool govulncheck ? e.g. what does Nancy do more/less/different. So people can easily decide which tool to use, or if both tools solve different problems.

cc @bhamail / @DarthHater

@adamdecaf
Copy link
Contributor

govulncheck looks at the AST (compiled code) to determine call paths which have known vulnerabilities. This involves compiling with a vulnerable Go's standard library or imported libraries. govulncheck uses the Go project's vulnerability database while Nancy uses Sonatype's and the open source index. Nancy inspects dependency files to look at all possible vulnerable library usage.

@kishaningithub
Copy link
Contributor

It would be great if this was documented in the README

@orsenthil
Copy link
Contributor

orsenthil commented Feb 26, 2024

Explained it in README here #277

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants