Vulnerability Assessment Systems Under Scrutiny
Major cybersecurity vulnerability assessment systems require significant overhaul, according to industry analysis from security company Codific. Sources indicate that both the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) identification system and the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) suffer from fundamental flaws that undermine their reliability.
CVE System Shows Significant Inaccuracy Rates
According to reports, approximately one-third of CVEs may be meaningless or inaccurate. Analysis from Codific CEO Aram Hovespyan cites academic research presented at the USENIX Security Symposium indicating that 34 percent of 1,803 CVEs referenced in research papers over the past five years were either unconfirmed or disputed by software maintainers. The study suggests that CVEs should not be used as proxies for real-world vulnerability impact.
Structural Problems in CVE Assignment Process
The CVE assignment system reportedly suffers from misaligned incentives among participating organizations. Analysts suggest that vulnerability researchers often seek to maximize CVE publications to build professional reputations, while product CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) have limited motivation to document flaws in their own software. Meanwhile, CNA Last Resorts typically lack technical context for thorough validation and prioritize speed over accuracy, according to Hovespyan’s analysis.
CVSS Scoring Inconsistencies Documented
The Common Vulnerability Scoring System shows significant reliability problems, with studies reportedly finding that more than 40 percent of CVEs receive different scores when re-evaluated by the same person just nine months later. Hovespyan’s analysis further contends that mathematical operations on CVSS scores are fundamentally unsound, as the ordinal numbers are improperly treated as quantitative values in security tool calculations.
Industry Leaders Echo Concerns
Daniel Stenberg, creator of the popular curl software, confirmed these concerns in statements to media outlets. Stenberg noted that the curl project deliberately avoids providing CVSS scores, arguing that single scores cannot reliably reflect diverse usage scenarios. In a recent blog post titled “CVSS is dead to us”, Stenberg explained that while CVSS is meant to provide base scores for environmental adjustment, in practice the numbers are used without proper context.
Documented Cases Highlight Systemic Issues
Multiple documented cases illustrate the problems with current vulnerability reporting systems. According to reports, a PhD student successfully obtained a CVE for a deprecated system that nobody used, which initially received a 9.1 CVSS score before being downgraded. Similarly, a problematic curl vulnerability report received an initial CVSS score of 9.8 out of 10 before being reduced to 3.3. These examples, documented in public vulnerability reporting platforms, demonstrate the scoring inconsistency issues.
Path Forward for Vulnerability Management
While acknowledging that CVEs and CVSS scores still provide value as inputs, Hovespyan argues in his comprehensive analysis that they should never form the foundation of application security strategies. Instead, analysts suggest starting with shared understanding of risk grounded in threat modeling and contextual triage. The report states that vulnerability dashboards can be helpful but only when interpreted through scientific methodology rather than relying solely on potentially flawed scoring systems originally developed by MITRE Corporation and subsequent authorities.
Industry-Wide Implications
The call for reform comes as cybersecurity professionals increasingly question the reliability of standardized vulnerability assessment frameworks. With major open-source projects like curl and the Linux kernel reportedly avoiding CVSS scoring altogether, industry observers suggest that broader changes to vulnerability management practices may be necessary to address the fundamental structural issues identified in current systems.
This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.
