TheHive project vs DFIR-IRIS¶

Choosing a platform¶

CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) need robust incident response platforms to handle vulnerability reports, assign CVE IDs, and coordinate responsible disclosure. While the exact platform used by CNA’s is not publicly disclosed, we can make an informed guess based on requirements for:

• Case management to track multiple vulnerability reports simultaneously.

• Collaboration features for working with researchers, vendors, and internal analysts.

• Security and auditability, ensuring sensitive vulnerability information is protected.

• Integration capabilities with threat intelligence platforms and automation tools.

Two prominent platforms in this space are DFIR-IRIS, an open-source digital forensics and incident response platform, and TheHive Project, a polished enterprise-ready solution. Both have features that a CNA would require, though they differ in architecture, deployment, and operational characteristics.

Core features comparison¶

DFIR-IRIS¶

• Case management: Supports multiple concurrent investigations with templates and real-time collaboration.

• Forensic analysis: Integrates with VirusTotal, MISP, WebHooks, and IntelOwl for enrichment.

• Automation: Custom modules and scripts allow workflow automation and evidence collection.

• Access control: Granular RBAC and case-level permissions.

• Extensibility: Modular architecture supports custom integrations.

TheHive (Commercial)¶

• Case management: Centralized platform with customizable templates and workflows.

• Alert management: Aggregates alerts from email, SIEMs, and threat intelligence feeds.

• Collaboration: Task assignments, comments, and case merging for coordinated workflows.

• Automation: Integrated with Cortex for automated analysis and response.

• Security: Enterprise-grade protections, regular updates, and commercial support.

Security considerations¶

Security orgs would need strong audit logging and controlled access. TheHive Commercial offers these features natively, while DFIR-IRIS can provide them but requires more administrative hardening.

Integration & extensibility¶

Small orgs, like a CNA, need smooth coordination with vendors, threat intel feeds, and automation pipelines. Both platforms deliver this, but TheHive’s Cortex ecosystem is more turnkey, while DFIR-IRIS depends on building or adopting modules.

Example integrations (DFIR-IRIS modules from GitHub)¶

DFIR-IRIS maintains a public repository of modules. Notable examples that would be useful in a CNA context include:

• iris-misp: Tight MISP integration (import/export of indicators and correlations).

• iris-virustotal: Direct enrichment of files, hashes, and URLs against VirusTotal.

• iris-shodan: Automated lookups of IPs and domains via Shodan.

• iris-intelowl: Connects to IntelOwl for multi-source enrichment.

• iris-crowdstrike (community module): Integration with CrowdStrike Falcon Intel API.

These provide ready-made enrichment for vulnerability reports and reduce manual triage.

Deployment & scalability¶

DFIR-IRIS can be deployed via Docker for cost-efficiency and flexibility, but TheHive Commercial offers proven scalability for larger CNA workloads.

Cost considerations¶

For non-profit initiatives, cost efficiency matters. DFIR-IRIS aligns with open-source budgets, but TheHive’s commercial support may be attractive if guaranteed uptime and SLA-backed support are required.

Informed guess: What small orgs might use¶

• Primary choice: DFIR-IRIS, adapted with custom modules and MISP integration.

  • Open-source matches non-profit nature.

  • Flexible enough for bespoke CNA workflows.

  • Securely hostable in-house with Docker.

• Alternative: TheHive Commercial, most likely with:

  • Enterprise-grade audit and access controls.

  • High-availability clustered deployment.

  • Professional support for handling a high vulnerability report volume.

Small orgs most likely balance cost, flexibility, and security. DFIR-IRIS is the strong candidate for in-house adaptation, while TheHive Commercial represents the polished but more expensive option.