HunterX vs OpenVAS
| Dimension | HunterX | OpenVAS (Greenbone) |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Web application security | Network vulnerability scanning |
| Detection | 4-stage reasoning pipeline | NASL script-based matching |
| Coverage | HTTP/HTTPS, WebSocket, GraphQL | Network protocols, ports, services |
| License | Apache 2.0 | GPL-2.0 |
| Language | Python | C, Python |
| Deployment | CLI, API, Docker (<1 min) | Full VM, Docker (complex) |
| Plugin System | Python decorator plugins | NASL scripts |
| Operator Profiles | Internal, Bounty, Gov, Custom | None |
| CVE Coverage | Exploit-focused (via probing) | Broad CVE database (100k+) |
| Auth Scanning | Basic, Bearer, Cookie, Form Login | SNMP, SSH credentials |
| Startup Time | <1s | 2-5 minutes |
| Memory | ~78 MB | ~2-4 GB |
| CI/CD | SARIF, API-first | Limited |
When to Use HunterX
- Web application penetration testing
- CI/CD pipeline security scanning
- API and GraphQL security testing
- AI-assisted vulnerability analysis
- Rapid deployment (Docker, CLI)
When to Use OpenVAS
- Network vulnerability scanning (port-based)
- Broad CVE coverage across network services
- Compliance scanning (PCI DSS, HIPAA)
- Internal network infrastructure assessment
Complementary Use
- OpenVAS for network-level vulnerability discovery and compliance
- HunterX for deep web application security testing and CI/CD integration
Both tools complement each other in a comprehensive security assessment program.