Add the total types of vulnerabilities in Grype output

[B3ns44d]

What would you like to be added:

The output would be greatly improved if we could include the total number of vulnerabilities in each category.

Something like this:

 ✔ Vulnerability DB        [updated]
 ✔ Loaded image
 ✔ Parsed image
 ✔ Cataloged packages      [16 packages]
 ✔ Scanned image           [5 vulnerabilities]
 ✔ Total: 5 (UNKNOWN: 0, LOW: 0, MEDIUM: 0, HIGH: 4, CRITICAL: 1) <---- THIS

Why is this needed:

This facilitates identifying the different categories of vulnerabilities.

[adriens]

Hi, this can be achieved this way :point_right: https://github.com/opt-nc/grype-contribs/issues/8#issuecomment-1201896328 :crossed_fingers: hopefully you'll find this helpful :smile_cat:

[B3ns44d]

Thanks for the trick @adriens, nonetheless, it would also be great if it's built-in in Grype cli.

[spiffcs]

apologies should have assigned the PR

[gh-greg]

Regarding Printing Summary: You ask, what is Twistlock / PrismaCloud 's' default CLI behaviour ? To print this:

Vulnerabilities found for image MY_IMAGE: total - 114, critical - 1, high - 6, medium - 57, low - 50
[PRISMACLOUD] Found 1 relevant files
[PRISMACLOUD] Found 114 vulnerabilities in 1 images

[pawelkowalak]

Hi, this can be achieved this way 👉 opt-nc/grype-contribs#8 (comment) 🤞 hopefully you'll find this helpful 😸

This is not the same, because that way you loose the detailed report. So to get the standard output table AND the summary, you need to scan image twice or save results as json and then parse it to list the CVEs.

[gh-greg]

------

This is not the same, because that way you lose the detailed report. So to get the standard output table AND the summary, you need to scan image twice or save results as json and then parse it to list the CVEs. (1) I agree with @pawelkowalak . Going further, it would have been nice, to simply print "total types of vunls" , directly from the 1 and only run. (2) However, is there some "unspoken requirement" by the Grype maintainers , at play in influencing the implementation? Perhaps they felt (I'm mind-reading): "It is too late to alter the default and now expected table output , in any way"