The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database has become the unofficial “official” source for disclosed vulnerabilities. Nearly every organization’s vulnerability management framework relies on it in one form or another, and whenever vulnerabilities are communicated, CVE IDs are often the first thing mentioned. Nearly every security tool, from vulnerability scanners to antivirus, base their findings on CVE as well as the National Vulnerability Database (NVD).
With CVE so ingrained into the current vulnerability management process, does it mean that CVE/NVD are the best sources for vulnerability intelligence? No. Despite the industry’s dependency, data from CVE and NVD isn’t always reliable and definitely is not timely.
Here are the facts:
- CVE has failed to report nearly 94,000 vulnerabilities since its inception in 1999, with many affecting major vendors and products.
- CVE’s aggregation process has systemic issues that result in missing, inaccurate, duplicate, and non-issue entries.
- CVE only aggregates vulnerabilities that are directly reported to them; they do not proactively seek new issues.
The public source operates on 66 percent visibility
The purpose of having a vulnerability management framework is to ensure that your organization is aware of issues that could potentially affect them, and that you have a plan in place to manage risk. But if your risk models are missing nearly a third of all known vulnerabilities, how effective can they be?
While many choose to not bring attention to it, CVE routinely misses around 33 percent of disclosed vulnerabilities per year. And over time, this has resulted in a gap of nearly 94,000 missed vulnerabilities:
Within this delta, many of these missing vulnerabilities affect major vendors and products found in every major organization in the world. There are also many that are high-to-critical, as well as issues that have public exploits or are remotely exploitable. In addition, CVE has a serious coverage gap of third-party libraries that may pose a risk to software supply chains.
CVE does not proactively seek vulnerabilities
Why is CVE missing so many vulnerabilities? The answer ultimately lies in their approach to vulnerability aggregation, in addition to their inability to shift with evolving trends.
CVE does not proactively seek vulnerabilities; they only collect what is reported directly to them. This is the primary reason for the gap of near 94,000 vulnerabilities. But to exactly understand how this happens, it is important to take into account how the vulnerability landscape has changed since CVE’s creation.
Vulnerability disclosures have changed by 1711% since 2000
Vulnerabilities are now found everywhere
While the number of disclosed vulnerabilities has dramatically increased, the sources of where they are being reported has also grown. These days, vulnerabilities are found all across the internet, a far-cry from decades past where the majority of issues could be tracked using vendor advisories and a couple vulnerability mailing lists.
Why CVE’s vulnerability delta matters and how it affects you
In a way, CVE/NVD has become this generation’s stork, where enterprises rely on CVE to “mint” CVE IDs to cover vulnerabilities, and then on NVD to provide a CVSS score to dictate prioritization.
There was, and still is, a real need to categorize vulnerabilities, and CVE provided a system that shaped the security industry. However, most of today’s security problems took form when security vendors started to rely on CVE and NVD just as much as regular organizations.
For 20+ years, security vendors have built their solutions around CVE/NVD data. That therein lies the issue, creating two problems:
Vulnerabilities are not dependent on CVE IDs
An assignment from CVE has no bearing on the impact of a vulnerability. All a CVE ID indicates is that the issue has been reported to MITRE. Although it may seem that an assignment would only be given to valid issues, this isn’t always the case.
NAVs happen for two reasons, the first being that the issue was deemed not to be a vulnerability after its initial disclosure, or that validation checks were not performed. One may think that CVE has improved their processes for reducing the number of NAV entries, but data shows that NAV CVE assignments have progressively increased over time.
Security vendors replicating CVE data will inherit mistakes
Security vendors strictly relying on the public source will likely replicate CVE NAVs, but more importantly, they will be unaware of nearly 94,000 known vulnerabilities. Are you comfortable knowing that your CVE-based vulnerability scanner is immediately unable to identify 33% of the issues potentially affecting your systems?
Practitioners are likely aware that the scanning delta is actually much higher, if accounting for naturally occurring coverage gaps, and the fact that most scanning technologies often look for only a third of CVE. We’ll explain the major timeliness issues that signatures pose in a later article, but the important thing to know is that users won’t be aware of the innate coverage gaps at all. Scanning reports will not tell you that its data subset is incomplete, so if you aren’t aware of CVE’s innate problems, you will likely have a false sense of security.
The end result is more work on your part
Aside from NAVs and missing vulnerabilities, replicating CVE/NVD bequeaths another critical problem – CVE and NVD’s existing data.
MITRE and NIST (the maintainers of NVD) have had historical problems with data accuracy and missing metadata that result in timeliness issues, and most of it is due to how vulnerabilities are reported. Since neither organization actively seeks new information, they heavily rely on what is provided when the entry is submitted.
Technically, anyone can submit a vulnerability for a CVE assignment and as such, each entry tends to greatly vary. Titles can be misleading or vague, vital metadata like exploit and solution can be missing, or the CVSS could be scored wrong if it is based on poor data. There are even CVE IDs that are published that don’t even include the affected vendor or product.
At the end of the day, current CVE/NVD data creates more work on the user’s end where they spend more time validating and researching the entry rather than actually managing it. With comprehensive vulnerability intelligence, you can get actionable details 21 days faster on average compared to CVE, eliminating the need to research issues enabling faster remediation.