search

Sinderella / epherousa

0 stars 0 forks source link

Adding new code to handle Exploit-DB CVE different HTML printings #53

Closed ngkogkos closed 7 years ago

ngkogkos commented 7 years ago

This should fix #51 bug, however I don't like how I've written the format cve method. We need to improve these ones as issues like that will arise all the time. Check for duplicates, check for weird characters in CVEs, and most importantly have variable type consistency I think.

In this case, I return "N/A" which is a string some times, while the other times its a list. Also, shouldn't all the searchers return the exact same thing when there is no exploit available?

Sinderella commented 7 years ago

Can you change this https://github.com/Sinderella/epherousa/blob/c534207b2150af3abfd879e95c54f5e86e9d9c3c/epherousa/searchers/ExploitDB.py#L121 to use set() instead of {}, as the curly brackets are for dictionary. I changed it because I thought it's for set().

Also this https://github.com/Sinderella/epherousa/blob/c534207b2150af3abfd879e95c54f5e86e9d9c3c/epherousa/searchers/ExploitDB.py#L38, I think we better use [ ] instead of list.

Beside those two points, just merge it or consider document the function before you do, see #54 .

Sinderella commented 7 years ago

Current coverage is 63.29% (diff: 46.15%)

Merging #53 into master will decrease coverage by 0.53%

@@             master        #53   diff @@
==========================================
  Files            12         12          
  Lines           553        564    +11   
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches         87         92     +5   
==========================================
+ Hits            353        357     +4   
- Misses          174        176     +2   
- Partials         26         31     +5

Powered by Codecov. Last update 92c7231...a4dfec8

ngkogkos commented 7 years ago

Ok @Sinderella wanna merge this?