Pros of Lynis

• Lightweight and easy to install with minimal dependencies
• Supports a wide range of Unix/Linux systems and distributions
• Provides detailed reports and suggestions for system hardening

Cons of Lynis

• Less comprehensive coverage of security standards compared to OpenSCAP
• Limited support for Windows systems
• Smaller community and fewer integrations with other security tools

Code Comparison

Lynis (shell script):

#!/bin/sh

# Default values
AUDITOR="lynis"
CRONJOB=0
ECHOCMD="echo"

OpenSCAP (C):

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <getopt.h>

#include "oscap.h"
#include "oscap_source.h"
#include "scap_ds.h"

Both projects aim to improve system security and compliance, but they differ in their approach and implementation. Lynis is written in shell script, making it more portable and easier to customize, while OpenSCAP is primarily written in C, offering potentially better performance for large-scale assessments.

Lynis focuses on quick system audits and provides actionable recommendations, whereas OpenSCAP offers a more comprehensive framework for security compliance and supports a broader range of security standards and benchmarks.

Pros of grype

• Focused specifically on container and application security scanning
• Faster scanning speed, especially for container images
• More user-friendly CLI interface and easier integration into CI/CD pipelines

Cons of grype

• Less comprehensive coverage of system-wide security policies
• Limited support for generating detailed compliance reports
• Narrower scope compared to OpenSCAP's broader system security capabilities

Code comparison

grype:

name: Scan with grype
on: [push]
jobs:
  scan:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: anchore/scan-action@v3
        with:
          image: "your-image:tag"

OpenSCAP:

oscap xccdf eval --profile xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_profile_pci-dss \
  --results-arf arf.xml \
  --report report.html \
  /usr/share/xml/scap/ssg/content/ssg-rhel7-ds.xml

grype focuses on a straightforward container scanning workflow, while OpenSCAP provides a more complex command structure for comprehensive system security evaluation.

Pros of Trivy

• Faster scanning speed and lightweight nature
• Broader support for container image formats and cloud infrastructure
• Easy installation and usage with minimal configuration

Cons of Trivy

• Less comprehensive security content compared to OpenSCAP
• Limited support for traditional operating system scanning
• Fewer customization options for compliance reporting

Code Comparison

Trivy command-line usage:

trivy image alpine:3.10

OpenSCAP command-line usage:

oscap xccdf eval --profile xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_profile_pci-dss --results-arf arf.xml --report report.html /usr/share/xml/scap/ssg/content/ssg-rhel7-ds.xml

Trivy focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while OpenSCAP provides more detailed and customizable scans. Trivy excels in container and cloud-native environments, whereas OpenSCAP is better suited for traditional operating system compliance checks and more complex security assessments.

Pros of Vuls

• Written in Go, offering better performance and easier deployment
• Supports multiple Linux distributions and package managers
• Provides a simple web UI for vulnerability management

Cons of Vuls

• Limited support for Windows systems
• Requires manual configuration for some advanced features
• Smaller community and fewer integrations compared to OpenSCAP

Code Comparison

OpenSCAP (C):

int xccdf_policy_model_get_score(struct xccdf_policy_model *model, struct xccdf_result *result, const char *system)
{
    struct oscap_iterator *it = xccdf_result_get_scores(result);
    while (oscap_iterator_has_more(it)) {
        struct xccdf_score *score = (struct xccdf_score *) oscap_iterator_next(it);
        if (strcmp(xccdf_score_get_system(score), system) == 0) {
            return xccdf_score_get_score(score);
        }
    }
    oscap_iterator_free(it);
    return 0;
}

Vuls (Go):

func (r *ScanResult) FilterByCvssOver(over float64) {
    filtered := []DetectedCveID{}
    for _, d := range r.ScannedCves {
        if over <= d.MaxCvss().Value.Score {
            filtered = append(filtered, d)
        }
    }
    r.ScannedCves = filtered
}

Both projects aim to improve system security, but they take different approaches. OpenSCAP focuses on compliance and configuration assessment, while Vuls emphasizes vulnerability scanning and management. The code snippets demonstrate the language differences and their respective focuses.

Pros of Terrascan

• Focused on cloud infrastructure and IaC scanning
• Supports multiple IaC tools (Terraform, Kubernetes, etc.)
• Easy to integrate into CI/CD pipelines

Cons of Terrascan

• Limited to cloud infrastructure security
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to OpenSCAP
• Less comprehensive coverage of system-level security

Code Comparison

OpenSCAP (C):

xccdf_policy_model_iterator_reset(policy_it);
while (xccdf_policy_model_iterator_has_more(policy_it)) {
    struct xccdf_policy *policy = xccdf_policy_model_iterator_next(policy_it);
    xccdf_policy_evaluate(policy);
}

Terrascan (Go):

for _, iacProvider := range iacProviders {
    iacParser := iacProvider.NewParser()
    iacParser.ParseIacFile(filePath)
    violations := iacParser.EvaluatePolicies()
}

OpenSCAP focuses on system-level security compliance, using C for low-level access. Terrascan specializes in cloud infrastructure security, utilizing Go for easier cloud integration. OpenSCAP offers broader security coverage but requires more setup, while Terrascan provides simpler cloud-specific scanning with less depth. OpenSCAP has a larger community and extensive documentation, whereas Terrascan benefits from easier CI/CD integration and multi-cloud support.

Pros of ansible-collection-hardening

• Easier to use and integrate with existing Ansible workflows
• More flexible and customizable for specific environments
• Regularly updated with community contributions

Cons of ansible-collection-hardening

• Limited to Ansible-based systems and environments
• May require more manual configuration for complex security policies
• Less comprehensive in terms of security standards coverage

Code Comparison

ansible-collection-hardening:

- name: Ensure password quality requirements
  lineinfile:
    path: /etc/security/pwquality.conf
    regexp: '^{{ item.option }}'
    line: '{{ item.option }} = {{ item.value }}'
  loop:
    - { option: 'minlen', value: '14' }
    - { option: 'dcredit', value: '-1' }

openscap:

<xccdf:Rule id="xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_rule_accounts_password_minlen_login_defs">
  <xccdf:title>Set Password Minimum Length in login.defs</xccdf:title>
  <xccdf:description>To specify password length requirements for new accounts,
    edit the file /etc/login.defs and add or correct the following line:
    PASS_MIN_LEN 14
  </xccdf:description>
</xccdf:Rule>

The ansible-collection-hardening example shows a more flexible approach to setting password policies using Ansible tasks, while the openscap example demonstrates a more structured, standards-based definition of security rules.