VXDF Standards Comparison
How VXDF Compares to Existing Standards
A comprehensive analysis for security engineers evaluating VXDF against established standards
SARIF
Static Analysis Results Interchange Format
Static Analysis
Strengths
- Wide tool adoption
- JSON format
- Extensible
Limitations
- No validation requirement
- No exploitability proof
- Unstructured evidence
- High false positive rate
Validation:Not Required
Evidence:Unstructured
Exploitability:Unknown
Adoption:High
CVE/NVD
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
Public Vulns
Strengths
- Universal adoption
- Authoritative source
- Long history
Limitations
- No validation requirement
- Text-only descriptions
- Slow publication process
- No actionable evidence
Validation:Not Required
Evidence:Text descriptions
Exploitability:Theoretical
Adoption:Universal
CycloneDX
Software Bill of Materials
SBOM + Vulns
Strengths
- Comprehensive SBOM
- Good tooling
- OWASP backing
Limitations
- SBOM-focused, not vuln-focused
- No validation mechanism
- Limited evidence structure
- No exploit verification
Validation:Not Required
Evidence:Basic
Exploitability:Unknown
Adoption:Growing
OVAL
Open Vulnerability Assessment Language
Config Checks
Strengths
- Validation included
- Detailed checks
- Government backing
Limitations
- Configuration-focused only
- Complex XML format
- Limited adoption
- Not exploit-focused
Validation:Required
Evidence:Basic
Exploitability:Compliance-focused
Adoption:Limited
VXDF
New
Validated Exploitable Data Flow
Validated Vulns
Strengths
- Evidence-based validation
- Structured proof system
- Exploit verification
- Actionable remediation
- Eliminates false positives
Limitations
- New standard
- Requires validation infrastructure
- Learning curve for adoption
Validation:Required
Evidence:33 structured types
Exploitability:Proven exploitable
Adoption:Emerging