Basically it's got some different features than PyDbg and a more complete documentation. If you have an *existing* project built upon PyDbg it's probably not worth switching (unless you've hit some very bad problem with it) but I believe it's better for newer projects, as this new library is more flexible and scalable.
It doesn't have a fuzzing platform like Sulley. It does however have some tools that can be useful when fuzzing, particularly one that attaches to a program as a debugger and logs the crashes it finds, using some simple heuristics to avoid logging the same crash twice. Let me know if you decide to give it a try, I'll help in anything I can :) Cheers, -Mario On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Jared DeMott<jdem...@crucialsecurity.com> wrote: > Can you compare/contrast with pydbg so I can understand why I might want > to give it a try? Do you have a fuzzing platform like Sulley for it as > well? Thx! > Jared -- HONEY: I want to… put some powder on my nose. GEORGE: Martha, won’t you show her where we keep the euphemism? _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
