Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures

Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) is a that catalogs cybersecurity vulnerabilities with , descriptions, and for each entry, standardized tracking and of publicly disclosed flaws in software, , and . The assigns in the format CVE-YYYY-NNNN to avoid duplicate naming and facilitate interoperability among vulnerability management tools and databases. Initiated in under the auspices of the U.S. of and later sponsored by the of , the CVE is administered by the as the CVE Numbering (CNA) and secretariat, overseeing a of organizations that nominate and validate entries. By providing a common nomenclature, CVE has become foundational to global vulnerability disclosure and response efforts, integrated into frameworks like the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) maintained by NIST for enriched analysis including severity scores. Over its 25-year , the has processed hundreds of thousands of records, significantly enhancing cybersecurity by promoting timely identification and patching of exploitable weaknesses. Despite its successes, the CVE faces ongoing challenges such as to surging vulnerability reports, ensuring equitable participation from CNAs, and addressing dependencies that have periodically strained operations. These issues the need for sustained public-private to maintain the 's reliability amid evolving threats like supply chain attacks and zero-day exploits.

History

Origins in the Late 1990s

In the late 1990s, the of and led to a surge in publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities, complicating efforts by security professionals to track and mitigate them consistently. Vendor-specific vulnerability databases proliferated, resulting in fragmented nomenclature and duplicated identifiers that hindered interoperability among scanning tools and threat intelligence sharing. To address this, the , a nonprofit , initiated the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) as a standardized for . The was developed by researchers E. and Steven M. Christey, who proposed a unique, sequential numbering scheme to provide a common lexicon independent of vendor or tool-specific terminology. The CVE was officially launched to the on , , during a , featuring an set of 321 curated vulnerability retroactively assigned identifiers from CVE-1999-0001 onward. This inaugural drew from existing disclosures to establish a foundational , cross-referencing in security products and reports.

Establishment and Early Development

The CVE program was formally established in 1999 through the efforts of the , which convened a and formed an 19-member CVE Editorial Board to standardize vulnerability naming. This board curated the original 321 CVE records, selected after reviewing thousands of vulnerability reports to eliminate duplicates and ensure comprehensive coverage of known issues in software and systems. The list was officially launched for public access in September 1999, marking the transition from conceptual planning to operational deployment under MITRE's management. Early development emphasized and into practices, with sponsorship from U.S. entities including the of Standards and (NIST) and the (DISA). By December 2000, 29 organizations had declared compatibility with the CVE list across 43 products, facilitating its in vulnerability scanning tools and . In 2002, NIST's Special Publication 800-51 explicitly recommended CVE usage for vulnerability management, providing federal guidance that accelerated institutional uptake. Further solidification occurred in 2004 when DISA issued a task order mandating CVE identifiers in applications, embedding the into and workflows. During this period, MITRE handled all CVE assignments as the sole editor, processing submissions manually while refining criteria for entry inclusion, such as requiring public disclosure and verifiable impact. This phase laid the groundwork for scalable operations, though growth was gradual, with the list expanding incrementally as awareness spread among cybersecurity vendors and researchers.

Key Milestones and Expansion

In the early , the CVE program gained institutional traction through endorsements by U.S. . The of Standards and (NIST) recommended CVE in 800-51, Guidelines on and of Systems, published in (updated in ). In June 2004, the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) required their use in information assurance vulnerability management applications. International recognition followed, with the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) incorporating CVE into Recommendation X.1520, Guideline for evaluation and authorization of ICT security products, in 2011. To address the impending exhaustion of four-digit sequence numbers (limiting assignments to 9,999 per year), the CVE program introduced a variable-length ID syntax in 2014, allowing up to 20 digits in the sequence field for scalability; this change took effect for new assignments as needed beyond CVE-2014-9999. A pivotal expansion began in , when the actively scaled its of CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs)—organizations authorized to assign CVE IDs—from participants to over by , distributed across 40 , decentralizing and accelerating cataloging. This growth paralleled a surge in the CVE record count, from the initial 321 entries in 1999 to over 240,000 by October 2024, reflecting broader adoption in vulnerability databases, tools, incident response, and policy frameworks worldwide. In September 2025, under (CISA) sponsorship, the shifted toward a " ," emphasizing accuracy, , , and to sustain amid rising volumes.

Technical Specifications

CVE Identifier Format and Syntax

The CVE identifier, commonly referred to as a CVE ID, follows a fixed syntax of "CVE-" prefixed to a four-digit year, followed by a hyphen and a variable-length sequence of decimal digits. The year component (YYYY) indicates the calendar year in which the ID was allocated or reserved by a CVE Numbering Authority (CNA), rather than the year of vulnerability discovery or public disclosure. This allocation occurs during the initial coordination phase, prior to publication, ensuring timely referencing for vulnerability management. The sequence number (N) begins as a four-digit starting from "0001" in each year but expands dynamically with additional digits as the volume of assignments increases, without fixed or . For instance, early such as CVE-1999-0001 employed four digits, whereas in years with over assignments, like 2021–2024, serials commonly reach six or seven digits, as in CVE-2023-123456. CNAs assign these sequentially within their while coordinating through the CVE to maintain per year, preventing overlaps or reallocation. The prefix "CVE" is always uppercase, with hyphens as the only separators; no letters, special characters, or spaces are included, enforcing a strictly alphanumeric-numeric structure for machine readability and standardization. This format ensures each ID denotes precisely one independently fixable vulnerability or exposure, prohibiting reuse or retroactive changes once published. Test or example IDs may use prefixes like "CVE-1900-" for documentation purposes, but production IDs adhere strictly to the post-1998 schema. The design supports interoperability in tools like vulnerability scanners and databases, where IDs serve as canonical references without ambiguity.

Core Data Fields

The core data fields in CVE records provide the essential structure for identifying, describing, and referencing publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities and exposures, as defined in the official CVE JSON record format (version 5.1.1 as of 2024). These fields ensure interoperability and machine-readability while mandating minimal required data for publication, including a unique identifier, descriptive text, supporting references, and temporal metadata. Optional fields, such as affected products or severity assessments, build upon this core but are not required for initial record creation. The following table outlines the primary required core data fields, their formats, and purposes:
FieldDescriptionRequirement and Format Notes
cveIdUnique alphanumeric identifier for the vulnerability, assigned sequentially within the year of publication.Required; format: CVE-YYYY-NNNNN (YYYY = 4-digit year; NNNNN = 4-7 digits).
descriptionsArray of textual summaries explaining the vulnerability's nature, impact, and context; must include at least one English-language entry.Required (min. 1 item); each entry is an object with lang (e.g., "en") and value (string, up to 3999 characters).
referencesArray of external sources, such as advisories or exploit details, linking to verifiable public documentation.Required (min. 1 item); each is an object with url (string), refsource (source name), and optional tags (e.g., "Vendor Advisory").
datePublishedTimestamp when the vulnerability details were first publicly disclosed.Required (within providerMetadata); ISO 8601 format (e.g., "2023-10-10T00:00:00.000Z").
dateUpdatedTimestamp of the most recent modification to the record.Required; ISO 8601 format, increments with updates via serial number.
stateCurrent status of the CVE record, indicating its validity for use.Required; enum values: "PUBLISHED" (active) or "REJECTED" (invalidated).
These fields are housed within a structured object starting with dataType: "CVE_RECORD" and dataVersion (e.g., "5.1.1"), ensuring records from CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) adhere to a consistent for automated and into vulnerability . Assigners must provide accurate, verifiable data in these fields to maintain the program's , with states used for duplicates or insufficient . As of CVE JSON 5.0 (introduced March 2023), enhancements allow for richer optional extensions without altering core requirements, supporting better automation in vulnerability management.

Handling Obsolete Fields and Updates

CVE records published after , 2016, may be updated by the owning CVE Numbering (CNA) to incorporate new , such as refined vulnerability descriptions, additional affected configurations, or updated , thereby maintaining the record's and accuracy. These modifications are facilitated through CVE Services, which published records alongside publishing new or marking them as . Requests for updates from external parties, including vulnerability discoverers or affected vendors, must be directed to the responsible CNA, who evaluates and implements changes as deemed appropriate; for (NVD) enrichments, such requests go to NIST. The CVE JSON schema employs versioning via the dataVersion field (e.g., "5.1.0") to manage structural , ensuring that from remain valid while newer submissions adhere to updated requirements. formats, such as CVE 4.0 and download structures, have been deprecated, with ending by , , to streamline handling and reduce burdens on consumers; transitional periods allowed before full to 5.x. Although no are explicitly flagged as deprecated in , updates to often involve serial number increments to revisions, and obsolete or erroneous —such as in rejected entries—is handled by ignoring the CVE ID or redirecting via the replacedBy array for duplicates or splits. In cases of schema changes rendering certain fields obsolete, backward compatibility is preserved through validation against the specified dataVersion, preventing disruption to existing tools and databases that parse older records. CNAs are guided to avoid substantive alterations to core elements like the vulnerability description post-publication unless justified by new evidence, prioritizing stability while addressing inaccuracies. This approach balances the need for timely corrections with the CVE List's role as a stable reference, though it relies on CNA diligence, as there is no centralized enforcement for post-publication consistency.

Assignment Processes

Role of CVE Numbering Authorities

CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) are organizations authorized by the CVE Program to assign CVE identifiers to vulnerabilities within their designated scopes and to publish associated CVE Records detailing the vulnerabilities' descriptions, references, and other metadata. These entities include vendors, security researchers, open source projects, computer emergency response teams (CERTs), hosted service providers, bug bounty programs, and consortia, enabling a distributed model for vulnerability identification and cataloging. Authorization requires organizations to demonstrate qualifications, adhere to operational rules, and maintain specific scopes of responsibility, such as products or ecosystems they oversee. The primary of CNAs involves serving as the evaluators and assignors for reported vulnerabilities falling under their purview, including validation of the issue's novelty, duplication against existing , and coordination with affected parties for accurate . CNAs must follow standardized procedures outlined in the CNA Operational Rules, which govern practices like , CVE ID , publication, and handling of updates or rejections. This includes ensuring CVE are publicly accessible via the CVE List and compatible with downstream consumers like the (NVD). In cases of overlap or disputes, CNAs collaborate or escalate to higher authorities, such as CNAs, which oversee hierarchical structures and can delegate sub-authorities. CNAs contribute to the CVE Program's by decentralizing the from a single central , reducing bottlenecks and enhancing coverage for specialized domains like systems or . However, their depends on consistent adherence to rules, with Root CNAs holding additional duties like creating new sub-CNAs and ensuring program-wide . As of , this model supports over 200 CNAs globally, thousands of assignments annually to maintain the CVE dictionary's timeliness and comprehensiveness.

Procedures for Splits and Merges

CNAs are authorized to perform splits and merges of CVE ID assignments to ensure each identifier corresponds to a distinct, independently fixable or , rather than grouping unrelated issues or separating what is effectively a single issue. A split occurs when a single CVE ID has been assigned to multiple distinct vulnerabilities that require separate identifiers, such as different bug types (e.g., buffer overflow versus SQL injection) or issues affecting different product versions with varying patch statuses. Conversely, a merge is applied when multiple CVE IDs have been assigned to what constitutes one vulnerability, often due to initial over-separation by reporters or incomplete information at assignment time. Decisions on whether to split or merge follow the CVE Abstraction Decision Tree (ADT), a structured guideline prioritizing factors like codebase, bug type, affected versions, and researcher input. Under ADT1, issues in different products are split unless from the same vendor and identical bug; same-codebase issues (e.g., shared libraries) proceed to further checks. ADT2 mandates splits for differing bug types, while ADT3 requires separation for distinct affected versions or differing remediation requirements. Later steps, such as ADT4, favor merging for identical bug types, versions, and products despite variations in impact or access vectors, assuming common underlying flaws. Complex cases, like large-scale problems or attack chains where fixing one issue resolves others, may require consultation with the CVE Program's coordination team. These criteria aim to maintain consistency, with variants (e.g., regressions reappearing post-patch) typically warranting splits, and closely related issues merged. For splits, the procedure involves: (1) identifying the vulnerabilities covered by the original CVE ID; (2) assigning new CVE IDs to the additional distinct issues; (3) adding a NOTE in each new entry referencing the original ID and explaining the split; and (4) updating the original entry with a NOTE listing the new IDs and indicating the split. The original ID is retained for the vulnerability most commonly associated with it, determined by search engine prevalence; ties are broken by highest CVSS score, broadest affected versions, or order in initial publication. Merges follow: (1) selecting one CVE ID as primary, based on common reference, authoritative source (vendor preferred over researchers), publication longevity, or lowest numeric value; (2) consolidating descriptions, references, and data from others into it; and (3) marking redundant IDs as REJECTED with a description linking to the primary. CNAs must document rationale in CVE records and notify affected parties, with disputes resolved via the CVE Program's formal process. These operations help refine the database but can introduce temporary confusion in vulnerability tracking until updates propagate to consuming tools.

Searching and Accessing CVE Records

The primary methods for searching and accessing CVE records utilize web-based interfaces maintained by the CVE Program at MITRE Corporation and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) operated by the National of Standards and Technology (NIST). On the official CVE website, users can perform keyword searches across vulnerability descriptions, references, and identifiers, or download the entire CVE in formats such as or XML for offline . These records, which catalog publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities, number over 299,000 as maintained by . The NVD provides an advanced search interface at nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search, enabling queries by CVE ID, vulnerability type, affected vendor or product (using Common Platform Enumeration or CPE), publication date range, CVSS severity score, and other filters. Unlike MITRE's basic records, which include core fields like a unique identifier, description, and public references, the NVD enriches entries with analyzed data such as Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) metrics, weakness enumerations from CWE, and additional references, making it suitable for detailed vulnerability assessment. Access to these web searches is free and public, requiring no authentication for read-only queries. For bulk or programmatic access, NVD offers data feeds in JSON format, segmented by the first four digits of the CVE ID (e.g., yearly batches) and updated weekly to reflect new or modified records. These feeds facilitate automated ingestion into vulnerability management systems. Additionally, NVD's RESTful Vulnerability API allows retrieval of individual CVE details or batches via HTTP GET requests, supporting parameters for fields like pubStartDate and resultsPerPage, though subject to rate limiting (e.g., 5 requests per 30 seconds without an API key). MITRE provides a CVE Services API for authorized programmatic interactions, such as record validation, but it requires credentials and is oriented toward CVE Numbering Authorities rather than general users. Third-party aggregators exist for enhanced search capabilities, but official sources from MITRE and NIST remain the authoritative references to ensure data integrity and timeliness.

Practical Usage

Integration in Vulnerability Management

CVE identifiers serve as a foundational element in vulnerability management by providing a universal reference for known security flaws, enabling organizations to systematically identify, assess, prioritize, and remediate risks across IT assets. Vulnerability scanners and assessment tools, including commercial solutions like Nessus and open-source options like , leverage CVE data to detect matches against scanned systems, generating actionable reports that link findings to specific entries in the CVE list or the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). This standardization reduces ambiguity in vulnerability reporting, allowing security teams to correlate discoveries from disparate tools without relying on vendor-specific nomenclature. During the and stages, CVE facilitates quantitative by associating with severity scores from the (CVSS), often enriched by NVD analyses. Organizations these scores—ranging from 0.0 to 10.0—to vulnerabilities, focusing resources on those with high exploitability or potential , such as CVEs linked to active in frameworks like CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog. This supports data-driven decisions, where factors like affected asset criticality and environmental refine beyond scores. In remediation workflows, CVE IDs to by vulnerabilities to , changes, or workarounds documented in advisories or NVD feeds. platforms, such as those from or , use CVE to automate deployment sequencing, verify coverage post-application, and with baselines like NIST SP 800-40 guidelines for and programs. For instance, systems query CVE to updates specific , minimizing in environments. Ongoing involves continuous scanning and , where CVE updates dashboards in (SIEM) systems or tools, metrics on time to remediate (MTTR) tied to specific . with frameworks like NIST SP 800-53 requires CVE-based for audits, though practitioners must for in CVE or NVD enrichment, which can real-time threats by days or weeks. Effective implementations synchronize multiple sources, including MITRE's CVE and vendor feeds, to mitigate gaps in coverage.

Applications in Standards and Compliance

CVE identifiers are integral to vulnerability management processes mandated by cybersecurity standards, enabling consistent tracking, prioritization, and remediation of publicly disclosed flaws across organizational systems. In frameworks like NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5, controls such as RA-5 (Vulnerability Scanning) emphasize the use of automated tools that leverage standardized identifiers like CVE to scan for, analyze, and report vulnerabilities, facilitating interoperability and reducing manual errors in compliance assessments. The NIST National Vulnerability Database (NVD) further enriches CVE records with severity scores and vectors, supporting federal compliance under FISMA by providing machine-readable data for policy evaluation and continuous monitoring. Payment card standards, including DSS 4.0, require scans and under requirements 6.2 and 11.3, where CVE-numbered entries in the NVD are commonly referenced to assign CVSS scores and determine remediation urgency, with failures often tied to unaddressed high-severity CVEs (base score ≥4.0). Authenticated scans, now explicitly required, uncover deeper issues mapped to CVEs, ensuring entities demonstrate risk-based for . International standards such as incorporate CVE through (Management of Technical Vulnerabilities), which mandates identification, assessment, and mitigation of information system weaknesses; CVE's supports this by offering , for supplier disclosures and integrating with plans during audits. Similarly, GDPR ( and ) indirectly relies on CVE for assessments, as organizations must evaluate known vulnerabilities in systems to prevent incidents requiring notification within 72 hours. The (SCAP), developed by NIST, automates validation using CVE as a foundational for , , and , applicable to regimes like FISMA and extending to private-sector adaptations. This aids auditors in verifying remediation , though gaps in CVE coverage can full attestation, underscoring the need for supplementary in high-stakes environments.

Limitations in Real-World Deployment

In real-world vulnerability management, the sheer volume of CVE entries overwhelms security teams, with over 30,000 new CVEs published annually in recent years, contributing to alert fatigue and inefficient resource allocation as organizations struggle to triage and patch amid proliferating identifiers. This proliferation, exacerbated by the inclusion of low-severity or theoretically vulnerable entries, results in enterprises chasing non-exploitable issues, where only approximately 15% of identified vulnerabilities pose practical exploit risks in deployed environments. Vulnerability scanners reliant on CVE data often suffer from inaccuracies due to incomplete or inconsistent records, such as mismatched software versioning or absent contextual details on affected configurations, leading to false positives that divert attention from genuine threats. For instance, scanners may flag a CVE against a patched or variant software release if precise matching fails, inflating remediation efforts without addressing real-world exposure. Additionally, the absence of standardized exploitability metrics in core CVE entries forces reliance on supplementary scoring like CVSS, which frequently underestimates or overstates deployment-specific risks, as base scores ignore environmental factors such as network segmentation or compensating controls. Deployment challenges extend to with tools, where outdated CVE to delayed updates or vendor non-reporting—creates spots in continuous pipelines, particularly in hybrid and systems where custom configurations evade standardized CVE . This results in inconsistent assessments across distributed assets, heightening the of unpatched exposures in operational technology or third-party components not fully covered by CVE's software-centric . Consequently, organizations increasingly CVE with exploit validation frameworks or feeds to bridge these gaps, though this adds to automated deployment workflows.

Criticisms and Limitations

Issues with Quality and Consistency

The quality of CVE records varies significantly due to reliance on multiple CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs), leading to incomplete or vague vulnerability descriptions that hinder effective prioritization and remediation. For instance, analyses of over 133,000 CVE entries from 1999 to 2019 revealed frequent omissions of critical details such as exploitability conditions, affected versions, and remediation steps, with up to 40% of records lacking sufficient technical specificity for automated analysis. This incompleteness stems from inconsistent CNA practices, where some authorities provide minimal unstructured text while others offer more detail, exacerbating challenges in integrating CVE data into vulnerability scanners. Consistency issues are compounded by discrepancies in severity scoring and categorization, even for semantically similar vulnerabilities. Research on the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), which analyzes CVEs, identified CVSS score mismatches where identical vulnerability types received divergent ratings—e.g., buffer overflow flaws scored as low as 3.1 or as high as 9.8—due to subjective interpretations of base metrics like attack complexity. Such variances arise because CNAs apply Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) independently without mandatory harmonization, resulting in up to 25% of entries showing illogical severity drifts when clustered by description similarity. Duplicates and redundant entries further undermine reliability, as the decentralized assignment process allows overlapping identifiers for the same flaw across products or vendors. Examples include cases where a single vulnerability, such as a specific SQL injection in open-source software, received multiple CVE IDs due to fragmented reporting, complicating deduplication in security tools. Studies of vulnerability databases highlight that differing inclusion criteria among CNAs contribute to these redundancies, with inconsistency rates exceeding 10% when cross-referencing CVE against vendor advisories. Additionally, the unstructured nature of many CVE descriptions leads to mismatches with structured NVD enrichments, where automated parsing fails to align raw CVE text with CVSS vectors or Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) applicability. These and deficits have persisted despite efforts to standardize schemas, as evidenced by ongoing variability in reported in 2024-2025 assessments, where CNA-submitted often prioritize speed over amid surging volumes exceeding annually. While MITRE's oversight aims to mitigate such problems through guidelines, the distributed model inherently tolerates errors that propagate to downstream users, including enterprises and frameworks reliant on CVE for .

Delays, Backlogs, and Scalability Challenges

The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program has encountered persistent delays in processing and assigning identifiers due to surging submission volumes that outpace available resources. In 2024, vulnerability researchers disclosed over 40,000 CVEs, reflecting a 38% year-over-year increase, which strained the program's capacity to handle entries efficiently. This growth stems from expanded software ecosystems, increased scrutiny by security firms, and incentives for researchers to report flaws promptly, but the CVE system's reliance on coordinated review by MITRE and CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) has led to bottlenecks. Backlogs have intensified at the (NVD), operated by NIST, where detailed of CVE entries lags significantly. By early , NIST reported a 32% in CVE submissions from the year, exacerbating and leaving a substantial portion of unanalyzed. indicated that 93.4% of new and 50.8% of known exploited ones awaited NVD enrichment, with the backlog worsening as continued to exceed analytical throughput. Funding reductions, including a 12% cut to NIST's budget, contributed to understaffing and slowed triage, as manual verification processes proved inadequate for the influx. Scalability challenges arise from the program's decentralized yet centralized model, where CNAs submit to MITRE for final ID assignment, but global coordination falters under exponential growth. The near-expiration of federal funding for MITRE's CVE operations in April 2025 highlighted structural vulnerabilities, risking further disruptions in ID issuance and forcing temporary halts in non-essential processing. Without enhanced automation or resource scaling, delays can extend from weeks to months, impairing timely vulnerability prioritization in enterprise environments and exposing systems to unpatched exploits. These issues underscore the need for architectural reforms to accommodate projected increases in disclosures driven by AI-assisted discovery tools.

Biases and Gaps in Coverage

The CVE system's coverage is inherently incomplete, as identifiers are assigned only upon request to a CVE Numbering Authority (), leaving many publicly disclosed vulnerabilities—particularly those in , niche , or unpatched —without formal entries. For example, flaws in specialized or devices often evade assignment due to constraints or lack of coordinated , hindering standardized tracking across ecosystems. This is exacerbated in () and operational technology () environments, where vulnerabilities, averaging dozens of exploitable issues per in some analyses, frequently lack unique CVE IDs amid challenges in reverse-engineering and vendor cooperation. Biases in CVE assignment stem from the program's reliance on voluntary reporting by vendors and researchers, disproportionately favoring larger, resource-rich entities capable of navigating disclosure processes. Established Western vendors, such as and , dominate entries, while smaller firms or those from regions with opaque norms contribute fewer, potentially understating risks in global supply chains. This vendor-size is compounded by linguistic and technological preferences in , with overrepresentation of vulnerabilities in languages like C/C++ tied to the ecosystems of participating reporters. Geographic and ecosystem disparities further manifest in underrepresentation of non-Western or open-source-heavy domains, where disclosure incentives differ; proprietary systems may suppress entries to mitigate liability, unlike transparent open-source projects that accrue more CVEs through community scrutiny. Empirical analyses confirm CVE data's 80% completeness against major databases but highlight persistent voids in hardware faults, misconfigurations, and supply-chain compromises not fitting traditional software-flaw molds. These biases distort prioritization, as vulnerability management tools trained on skewed CVE/NVD data amplify focus on well-documented threats while overlooking underrepresented vectors.

Funding and Governance Controversies

Historical Reliance on Government Funding

The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program was established in 1999 by the , with its core operations funded from through contracts with the U.S. of (DHS). This sponsorship model positioned CVE as a federally supported initiative aimed at standardizing , initially drawing on resources from DHS predecessors like the to enable between , , and researchers. Throughout its , has operated CVE under task orders as a Federally Funded (FFRDC) for DHS, receiving dedicated appropriations without substantial contributions to central or ID assignment processes. funding for CVE and related efforts, such as the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE), has typically ranged from $30 million to $40 million in recent contracts, allocated via DHS budgets managed by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). This structure supported expansion, including the growth from 321 initial records in 1999 to over 240,000 by 2024, but reinforced dependency on federal fiscal cycles. The absence of diversified historically CVE's , as evidenced by mandates like the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) task requiring CVE ID usage in systems, which further entrenched its without alleviating vulnerabilities. While Certified Numbering Authorities (CNAs)—over by —contribute voluntarily to ID assignments, program sustainability has remained tied to DHS contracts, prioritizing public-sector cybersecurity needs over alternatives.

The 2025 Funding Crisis

In April 2025, the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program encountered a near-total funding collapse when the U.S. of Security's (CISA) failed to renew its with , the program's long-standing operator, set to expire on April 16, 2025. , which had managed CVE since 1999 under government auspices, issued a public warning on April 15 via a letter from Vice President Yosry Barsoum, stating that without immediate funding, operations would cease, halting the assignment of unique CVE identifiers essential for standardizing vulnerability reporting worldwide. The impending shutdown threatened cascading effects across cybersecurity ecosystems, including delays in vulnerability disclosure, integration breakdowns with tools like the (NVD), and heightened risks for organizations dependent on timely CVE data for prioritization and patching. Industry analyses projected that even a brief interruption could exacerbate existing backlogs, with over 200,000 vulnerabilities already cataloged and daily submissions from 453 CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) at risk of stalling. This episode underscored the program's heavy reliance on a single federal funding stream, totaling millions annually through DHS contracts, without diversified revenue models. Resolution came in a last-minute extension announced by CISA on April 16, 2025, securing MITRE's operations for one additional year while negotiations for long-term sustainability continued. Despite averting immediate closure, the crisis amplified calls for reform, including CISA's subsequent assertions of a "mandate" to assume greater leadership over CVE by September 2025, potentially shifting control toward federal oversight amid debates on privatization or multi-stakeholder alternatives. The event highlighted systemic vulnerabilities in government-monopolized infrastructure, where bureaucratic delays nearly precipitated global disruptions, though the federated CNA structure mitigated total failure by enabling partial continuity.

Debates Over Control and Alternatives

The 2025 funding crisis for the CVE program, which manages the assignment of unique identifiers to publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities, intensified longstanding debates about centralized under U.S. government sponsorship. , the nonprofit operator of CVE since 1999, relies almost exclusively on contracts from the (CISA), leading critics to argue that this model creates vulnerabilities in , including potential political and funding instability. For instance, when funding lapsed briefly on April 16, 2025, before an 11-month extension to March 6, 2026, experts highlighted risks to vulnerability tracking, prompting calls for CVE from single-government to enhance neutrality and . Proponents of for a non-governmental , citing CISA's recent in 2025 that sought greater oversight, which raised concerns among CVE board members about eroding the program's impartiality. Cybersecurity professionals at events like DEF CON in 2025 discussed transitioning to multi-stakeholder , potentially involving or consortia, to mitigate U.S.-centric biases in vulnerability and disclosure. However, defenders of the current model emphasize that government backing ensures consistent standardization, without which fragmentation could hinder interoperability across tools like scanners and patch managers. Emerging alternatives include the CVE , established to promote an independent, community-driven successor that would supplant the CISA-MITRE framework by decentralizing identifier through . Other proposals from systems like Google's Vulnerabilities (OSV) database, which integrates from multiple feeds for faster open-source vulnerability tracking, or vendor-specific advisories and CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, suggesting a to reduce reliance on a single choke point. These options, while promising resilience, risk inconsistent scoring and duplicate efforts, as evidenced by past overlaps in databases like the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), underscoring trade-offs between central authority and distributed innovation.

Recent Developments and Future Directions

Reforms and CISA Involvement Post-2024

In April 2025, the CVE program faced a near-disruption when MITRE Corporation, its primary operator under a U.S. Department of Homeland Security contract, announced that federal funding would expire on April 16, 2025, potentially halting CVE identifier issuance and related services. CISA intervened by securing an 11-month funding extension through March 6, 2026, averting immediate collapse while prompting broader discussions on program sustainability and governance. This crisis highlighted vulnerabilities in the program's reliance on annual government appropriations, spurring CISA to assert greater leadership to ensure continuity. In September 2025, CISA released a strategic outlining reforms to the CVE into a "quality era," prioritizing enhancements in completeness, accuracy, and timeliness. Specific measures include mandating richer CVE with standardized fields like CVSS scores and CWE classifications—by August 2025, 79.9% of active Certified Numbering Authorities (CNAs) already incorporated such in recent publications—and improving prioritization to on exploited flaws. CISA committed to modernizing technical infrastructure for better scalability and interoperability, while expanding partnerships with CNAs, vendors, and international entities to distribute workload and enhance global coverage. To address funding instability, CISA proposed diversifying revenue streams beyond federal budgets, including potential contributions from private sector stakeholders and international governments, while upholding the program's core principle of free, open access to CVE data as a public good. These efforts coincided with tensions over program control, as CISA's directives faced pushback from some CVE Board members advocating decentralized alternatives, though CISA emphasized its accountability for national critical infrastructure protection. Implementation tracking involves metrics on CNA compliance and record quality, with CISA positioning itself as the steward for long-term evolution amid ongoing debates on governance models.

Ongoing Technical Workshops and Metrics

The CVE Program conducts regular technical workshops targeted at CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) to enhance vulnerability identification processes, data quality, and tool usage. The Autumn 2025 Technical Workshop, held virtually on October 22 and 23, 2025, focused on improvements to CVE content and operations, with agendas distributed to registered participants emphasizing practical enhancements for CNA efficiency. Similarly, the CVE Program collaborated with FIRST for VulnCon 2025, spanning April 7 to 10, 2025, featuring sessions on vulnerability management and program integration. These events build on prior workshops, such as the 2022 CVE Services Workshop, which trained CNAs on version 2.1 services, JSON 5.0 schema, and record modification protocols to standardize outputs. Complementing workshops, ongoing working groups like the Automation Working Group (AWG), launched with calls for participation in 2025, prioritize modernizing CVE services, streamlining CNA workflows, and expanding capabilities to address . These initiatives align with CISA's 2025 roadmap, which advocates federated for vulnerability while enforcing minimum standards for . Program metrics evaluate through quantitative tracking of outputs and . Key indicators include published CVE Records, with 40,077 issued in 2024 and 11,701 in Q2 2025 alone, reflecting a 3% quarterly decline but overall exceeding 21,500 disclosures by mid-2025. CVE IDs totaled 52,316 in 2024 and 41,910 in 2025 to date, while CNA contributions dominate at 87% of records. benchmarks require valid records to feature a brief description and at least one reference, with 252 CNAs achieving ≥98% enrichment of records with CVSS scores and CWE classifications within two weeks of publication. The now encompasses 478 CNAs across 40 countries, up from prior years, indicating expanded global participation. These metrics, updated quarterly, inform workshop agendas and reforms to mitigate backlogs and ensure descriptive adequacy.

Proposed Diversification and Sustainability Measures

In response to the 2025 funding crisis, which exposed the CVE Program's overreliance on U.S. government contracts with , stakeholders proposed multiple models to diversify funding sources and enhance long-term . These measures aim to reduce vulnerability to budgetary fluctuations by incorporating contributions from , philanthropies, and entities, while preserving the program's role as a neutral, public-good dictionary of vulnerabilities. Proponents argue that diversification would enable amid rising vulnerability volumes—over 30,000 CVEs assigned in 2024 alone—without compromising the standardized essential for tools like vulnerability scanners. The CVE Foundation, established on April 16, 2025, advocates for transitioning the program to an independent non-profit entity with a diversified funding model drawing from private sector support, including tech companies and software vendors that depend on CVE data for compliance and remediation. This approach seeks to eliminate dependence on a single government sponsor, fostering global community governance through expanded roles for CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs)—over 450 organizations as of 2025—and API-driven operations for efficiency. Foundation supporters, including cybersecurity firms, contend that such independence would rebuild trust eroded by delays and perceived U.S.-centric biases, potentially incorporating subscription fees or voluntary contributions while maintaining free public access to CVE records. However, critics, including some government officials, warn that private influence could prioritize commercial interests over comprehensive coverage of open-source or non-Western vulnerabilities. CISA, as the program's , has outlined through while emphasizing continued oversight to vendor-neutrality and with priorities. In its , , "Strategic : CVE for a Cyber Secure ," CISA proposes expanding partnerships with domestic and entities, such as ENISA, to share costs and operational burdens, alongside modernization of for machine-readable . This includes piloting diversified like public-private , but retains to mitigate risks of fragmentation, as evidenced by temporary extensions in that averted immediate shutdown. Empirical from CISA indicates that -backed models have sustained CVE's since , though backlogs exceeding unprocessed entries in early underscore the need for fiscal resilience without full privatization. Independent blueprints, such as the October 8, 2025, report "CVE at a Crossroads" from the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, recommend a hybrid Global Vulnerability Catalog (GVC) governed by a multistakeholder board comprising governments, software producers, users, and researchers, funded via international cost-sharing to distribute burdens beyond U.S. taxpayers. Key sustainability elements include enforcing "Complete, Accurate, Timely" (CAT) standards for records, independent audits, and infrastructure upgrades like cloud-native APIs to handle exponential growth. Benefits cited include enhanced global trust and reduced single-point failures, with risks of catalog fragmentation if stakeholder coordination falters; the report urges retaining all historical CVE data while empowering CNAs for upstream quality control. These proposals reflect causal tensions between centralized efficiency and decentralized robustness, with adoption hinging on reconciling government mandates for rapid threat response against industry demands for autonomy.

Impact and Effectiveness

Achievements in Standardization

The CVE program established a unified for publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities, addressing pre- fragmentation where disparate hindered cross-vendor communication and tracking. Launched publicly in with an initial 321 records, it provided unique, sequential identifiers (e.g., CVE-1999-XXXX) that serve as a for vulnerability , enabling consistent referencing in security advisories, databases, and tools. By , 29 organizations had declared with CVE across products, fostering in and systems. advanced through institutional , including NIST's recommendation of CVE usage in 800-51 () for guidelines and the U.S. Systems Agency's for CVE in applications (). Internationally, the incorporated CVE into Recommendation X.1520 (), promoting its use in standards. These milestones solidified CVE as a foundational in frameworks like the (NVD), (SCAP), Open Vulnerability and Assessment (OVAL), and Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE). The program's expansion of CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) in decentralized identifier to qualified organizations, contributions while maintaining ; by , over CNAs from 40 had produced more than ,000 records. This has integrated CVE into advisories from vendors like and such as the OWASP 10, enhancing coordinated worldwide without centralizing under a single .

Empirical Data on Adoption and Utility

The CVE program exhibits widespread through the expansion of CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs), entities authorized to assign CVE identifiers to vulnerabilities. In 1999, only one CNA existed (); by 2024, this grew to 408 CNAs operating across 40 , with 189 , demonstrating organizational in vulnerability . Between Q3 2023 and Q4 2024, supplier CNAs increased by 15.0%, and CNAs scoping cloud-hosted services rose by 46.7%, indicating into diverse technological ecosystems. Empirical metrics on CVE record publication further illustrate utility in scaling vulnerability tracking. From 321 records in 1999, annual publications reached 28,961 in 2023 and 28,392 year-to-date through September 2024, totaling over 240,000 records by October 2024. This growth, with a 24.1% quarterly increase in recent periods, supports standardized data feeds for tools like the (NVD), enabling automated scanning and prioritization in vulnerability management workflows. Utility is enhanced by data enrichment practices among CNAs, with 221 of 408 (54%) adding Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) and Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) details in 2024, a 47.2% rise from prior quarters, facilitating risk assessment and remediation. The program's role as a foundational reference—integrated into cybersecurity products from vendors worldwide—has made it the de facto international standard for vulnerability identification, underpinning coordinated defenses despite challenges like escalating volume.

Causal Analysis of Contributions to Cybersecurity

The CVE system's primary causal contribution to cybersecurity lies in its provision of unique, standardized identifiers for vulnerabilities, which enable precise tracking, aggregation, and across disparate tools and organizations. Established in by under U.S. government sponsorship, CVE addresses pre-existing fragmentation in vulnerability —where inconsistent led to duplicated efforts and overlooked threats—by assigning canonical IDs that facilitate machine-readable and automated . This standardization causally supports the ecosystem of by allowing tools to consistently entries, reducing errors in detection and ; for example, integration with the NVD since has enabled CVSS scoring, which quantifies severity and guides toward high-impact fixes. Without such uniformity, causal chains from to remediation would be disrupted by communication inefficiencies, as evidenced by the program's in scaling global vuln from hundreds to over 200,000 entries by 2024. Empirical studies demonstrate that CVE acts as a catalyst for vendor patching, though with variable tied to external factors like competition and severity. An of patch across software vendors found that CVE assignments significantly increase the likelihood and speed of fixes, with competitive pressures accelerating responses by 20-30% in multi-vendor ecosystems. Similarly, a large-scale of over ,000 CVEs revealed that security patches are predominantly reactive to disclosed identifiers, enabling systematic remediation but highlighting delays averaging 20-60 days for non-critical issues. However, this causal pathway is bidirectional: while CVE visibility incentivizes patches, premature without coordinated fixes can heighten exploit risks, as shown in research where unpatched CVE announcements correlate with a 15-25% rise in attacker activity within days. For zero-days transitioned to CVE status, patching timeliness improves when vulnerabilities affect multiple vendors, reducing exploitation windows by facilitating shared intelligence. Critically, CVE's contributions are mediated by and , limiting causation on . CISA's Known Vulnerabilities , built atop CVE , mandates patching within 15 days for critical entries under BOD 19-02 (), demonstrably lowering rates in compliant sectors through prioritized . Yet, indicates persistent gaps: only about 4% of CVEs exploits historically, but high-severity ones see 75% within 19 days of , underscoring that CVE excels in over prevention. Peer-reviewed work attributes modest to CVE's in fostering metrics-driven , but emphasizes that causes like insecure persist, with alone insufficient against surging disclosures (over 25,000 annually by ). Thus, while CVE causally amplifies reactive defenses via , its hinges on complementary practices, revealing no panacea for inherent software flaws.

References

  1. [1]
    Overview / About the CVE Program
    The mission of the CVE Program is to identify, define, and catalog publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
  2. [2]
    common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVE) - Glossary | CSRC
    Definitions: A list of entries-each containing an identification number, a description, and at least one public reference-for publicly known CS vulnerabilities.
  3. [3]
    History - CVE: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
    The original 321 CVE Records were created. The CVE List was officially launched for the public in September 1999.
  4. [4]
    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - CVE
    What is MITRE's role? HSSEDI, a DHS FFRDC operated by The MITRE Corporation, executes the CVE Program Secretariat, MITRE Top-Level Root (TL-Root), and CNA of ...
  5. [5]
    CVEs and the NVD Process
    The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program is a dictionary or glossary of vulnerabilities that have been identified for specific code bases.Cves And The Nvd Process · The Cve Assignment And... · Nvd Cve Enrichment
  6. [6]
    CVE Program Celebrates 25 Years of Impact in Cybersecurity | MITRE
    Oct 22, 2024 · Launched in 1999, the CVE Program has transformed the way organizations identify and manage cybersecurity vulnerabilities, enabling stronger ...
  7. [7]
    Despite challenges, the CVE program is a public-private partnership ...
    Mar 24, 2025 · The CVE program publishes standardized information about known cyber vulnerabilities, while the NVD is a storehouse for vulnerability management ...
  8. [8]
    The CVE Program at a Crossroads: History, Challenges ... - LinkedIn
    Apr 19, 2025 · This article examines the origins of the CVE program, its recent funding challenges, emerging solutions, and outlines a strategic vision for its future.
  9. [9]
    The History of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) | Tripwire
    Sep 16, 2020 · In September 1999, the first CVE List was made public. MITRE announced the creation of the CVE List during a press conference. It also placed a ...
  10. [10]
    The History of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE)
    Sep 16, 2020 · During the late 1990s, security professionals were using information assurance tools in concert with vulnerability scanners to detect and ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  11. [11]
    Technical Guidance for Handling the New CVE ID Syntax (Archived)
    Feb 20, 2014 · An input string that is known (or suspected) to be intended as a CVE Identifier, but does not strictly conform to the new 2014 CVE ID syntax .
  12. [12]
    CISA Presents Vision for the Common Vulnerabilities and ...
    Sep 10, 2025 · It marks the transition from the CVE Program's Growth Era to its Quality Era, a strategic focus that will enhance trust, boost responsiveness ...
  13. [13]
    Process - CVE: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
    A CVE ID is a unique, alphanumeric identifier assigned by the CVE Program. Each identifier references a specific vulnerability. CVE IDs have the following ...
  14. [14]
    CVE Numbering Authority (CNA) Operational Rules
    A CVE Identifier (CVE ID) and corresponding CVE Record enable multiple parties to discuss and share information with confidence that they are referencing the ...
  15. [15]
    CVE JSON record format - Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
    This is the blueprint for a rich set of JSON data that can be submitted by CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) and Authorized Data Publishers (ADPs) to describe a ...
  16. [16]
    Now Available — CVE List Downloads in CVE JSON 5.0 Format
    Mar 29, 2023 · CVE JSON 5.0 (view the schema) is the new official data format for CVE Records and download files. Download files based upon CVE JSON 4.0 ...Missing: fields | Show results with:fields
  17. [17]
    CVE Records Keep Getting Better and Better
    Oct 17, 2023 · Optional content fields are also now available for severity scores, CWE IDs, researcher credit, and more, making CVE Records even more valuable.
  18. [18]
    [PDF] CVE Record Management Guidelines
    Jul 14, 2023 · Until then, there is a limit on the CVE Record Description field to a maximum of 3999 characters. Be aware of this when developing ...
  19. [19]
    CVE Record User Guide
    In the following section you will find the descriptions, format information and examples for the following fields: default status, top-level version/version ...
  20. [20]
    CVE Services - CVE: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
    Apr 14, 2023 · At cve.org, we provide the authoritative reference method for publicly known information-security vulnerabilities and exposures.Missing: core | Show results with:core
  21. [21]
    Update a CVE Record
    To update a CVE record, identify the publishing CNA, locate the responsible CNA, and contact them to request the update. For NVD updates, contact NIST.
  22. [22]
    Deprecation of Legacy CVE Download Formats Now Underway
    Jan 9, 2024 · These legacy download formats have been replaced by CVE JSON as the only supported format for CVE Records and downloads (see below).Missing: fields | Show results with:fields
  23. [23]
    Move user controlled metadata fields to the containers #90 - GitHub
    Jul 23, 2021 · "replacedBy": Contains an array of CVE IDs that this CVE ID was rejected in favor of because the this CVE ID was assigned to the vulnerabilities.
  24. [24]
    CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs)
    CNAs are vendor, researcher, open source, CERT, hosted service, bug bounty provider, and consortium organizations authorized by the CVE Program.Missing: scheme | Show results with:scheme
  25. [25]
    CNAs and CVE Counting - NVD
    The organizations authorized to assign CVE IDs are known as CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs). CNAs. In order to become a CNA, a qualified organization must ...
  26. [26]
    CVE program structure - CVE: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
    In that hierarchal structure, Top-Level Roots (TL-Root) report directly to the CVE Board and manage their own Root / CVE Numbering Authority (CNA) hierarchies ...
  27. [27]
    CISA Root Common Vulnerability and Exposures Numbering ...
    This function will recruit current and new ICS and medical device vendors to become CVE assignors of CVEs through the existing CISA task area.
  28. [28]
    CVE Numbering Authority (CNA) Rules
    Feb 1, 2020 · One of the unique responsibilities of a Root CNA is creating new CNAs within its scope. Root CNAs can create Sub-CNAs, CNA-LRs, and even other ...
  29. [29]
    List of Partners - CVE: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
    CVE Numbering Authority (CNA): An authorized entity with specific scope and responsibility to regularly assign CVE IDs and publish corresponding CVE Records.
  30. [30]
  31. [31]
    CVE Content Decisions: Application Guidance for CNAs
    Nov 20, 2014 · SPLIT - assign separate CVE identifiers to X and Y; MERGE - assign the same CVE identifier to both X and Y (i.e. combine them); CONSULT - DO ...
  32. [32]
    CVE: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
    At cve.org, we provide the authoritative reference method for publicly known information-security vulnerabilities and exposures.About the CVE Program · Glossary · Process · Learn
  33. [33]
    NVD - Search and Statistics
    NVD Vulnerability Search ; CVE-2025-9992, 2025-09-18, Wordfence ; CVE-2025-9991, 2025-09-30, Wordfence ...
  34. [34]
    Vulnerability APIs - NVD
    The CVE Change History API is used to easily retrieve information on changes made to a single CVE or a collection of CVE from the NVD. This API provides ...Missing: obsolete | Show results with:obsolete
  35. [35]
    NVD - Data Feeds - National Institute of Standards and Technology
    The vulnerability feeds provide CVE® data organized by the first four digits of a CVE® identifier (except for the 2002 feeds which include vulnerabilities prior ...
  36. [36]
    CVE Services API 2.5.4 OAS 3.0
    The CVE Services API supports automation tooling for the CVE Program. Credentials are required for most service endpoints.
  37. [37]
    What is CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) ?
    Rating 4.9 (214) Jun 3, 2025 · What Is the Structure of a CVE Identifier? A CVE Identifier is a unique identifier assigned to publicly known cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It ...
  38. [38]
    Understanding CVE & CVSS: Effectively Evaluating Vulnerabilities
    May 4, 2025 · This is where two standards, now integral tools in vulnerability management, come into play: CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) and CVSS ...
  39. [39]
    Vulnerabilities - NVD
    The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) Program's primary purpose is to uniquely identify vulnerabilities and to associate specific versions of code ...National Vulnerability Database · Data Feeds · Vulnerability Status · Products
  40. [40]
    What are Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE)? - Balbix
    Jan 17, 2025 · Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) is a public databased that identifies and catalogs security vulnerabilities in software and ...What is a CVE Identifier? · Who Reports CVEs? · What are the Challenges of...<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog | CISA
    CISA maintains the authoritative source of vulnerabilities that have been exploited in the wild. Organizations should use the KEV catalog as an input to their ...
  42. [42]
    What Is a CVE and How Should You Prioritize Patch Management?
    Jun 16, 2025 · CVE identifiers are essential for tracking known vulnerabilities ... Security teams use CVEs to assess asset exposure, implement patch ...
  43. [43]
    CVE-ID Based Patching - TechDocs - Broadcom Inc.
    Security and software management teams use the CVE ID to track these issues and remediate them. Previous versions of ITMS provided article links to CVE IDs ...
  44. [44]
    Creating a Patch and Vulnerability Management Program
    This document provides guidance on creating a security patch and vulnerability management program and testing the effectiveness of that program.
  45. [45]
    The CVE & CVE Management, Explained - Splunk
    Jul 22, 2024 · A CVE ID has the following format: CVE-Year-Number. In the past, the ... ID assigned by Microsoft Corporation in 2022 for Windows Terminal Remote ...<|separator|>
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Use of the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE ...
    This document provides guidelines for federal organizations' acquisition and use of security- related information technology (IT) products and services. NIST's ...
  47. [47]
    NIST SP 800-53r5 Compliance Guide for Vulnerability Management
    May 15, 2025 · NIST 800-53 offers a structured approach to help organizations proactively identify, assess, prioritize, and remediate vulnerabilities. It also ...How NIST 800-53r5 Relates to... · Key NIST 800-53r5 Controls...
  48. [48]
    RA-5: Vulnerability Scanning - CSF Tools
    Employs vulnerability scanning tools and techniques that facilitate interoperability among tools and automate parts of the vulnerability management process.Missing: usage | Show results with:usage
  49. [49]
    PCI DSS Vulnerability Management: The Most Misunderstood…
    Apr 16, 2024 · Most vulnerabilities with a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) number in the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) will be assigned a ...
  50. [50]
    Reasons for PCI Compliance Status
    1) CVSS base score of 4.0 or greater results in an automatic failure. · 2) Un-supported software results in an automatic failure. · 3) Open access to databases ...
  51. [51]
    Explanation of New Authenticated Scanning PCI DSS Requirement ...
    Feb 20, 2024 · Deeper security insights: Authenticated scans delve into systems more deeply, uncovering vulnerabilities that unauthenticated scans may miss.
  52. [52]
    Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) - BitSight Technologies
    Oct 14, 2025 · A CVE, or Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures, is a standardized identifier for a known cybersecurity vulnerability. Essentially, a CVE is ...<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    [PDF] CVE® The Standard for Information Security Vulnerability Names
    The MITRE Corporation maintains CVE and its public Web site, manages the compatibility program, and provides impartial technical guidance to the CVE Editorial ...
  54. [54]
    A Study on the Importance of Control Items of NIST SP 800-53 by ...
    This study aims to analyze the relationship between NIST SP 800-53 and CVE to establish prioritization for evaluating security control items. Controls that are ...<|separator|>
  55. [55]
    A Vulnerability Management Crisis: The Issues with CVE | CSA
    Nov 21, 2024 · CVE issues include lack of updates, poor data quality, outdated info, difficulty finding relevant data, and the increasing volume of CVEs.
  56. [56]
    What's behind unchecked CVE proliferation, and what to do about it
    The volume of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) has reached staggering levels, placing immense pressure on organizations' cyber defenses.
  57. [57]
    Limitations of CVE Management as a Primary Strategy - Pentera
    Nov 11, 2022 · With only about 15% of vulnerabilities actually exploitable, patching every vulnerability is not an effective use of time.
  58. [58]
    Exploitable Vulnerabilities: Prioritize What Poses Real Risk - Cymulate
    Aug 5, 2025 · Stop chasing every CVE. Focus on exploitable vulnerabilities to reduce alert fatigue and improve security outcomes.
  59. [59]
    Limitations of modern vulnerability scanners and CVE Systems
    Aug 9, 2025 · Modern vulnerability scanners, though that are based on CVE data, have many drawbacks because of inconsistencies and incompleteness of the CVE ...
  60. [60]
    Limitations of modern vulnerability scanners and CVE Systems -
    Jul 21, 2025 · Modern vulnerability scanners, though that are based on CVE data, have many drawbacks because of inconsistencies and incompleteness of the CVE ...
  61. [61]
    [PDF] Limitations of modern vulnerability scanners and CVE Systems
    Jul 21, 2025 · Scanners tend to miss out on real-life vulnerabilities if they are unable to accurately match CVE records to the exact version or ...
  62. [62]
    Why CVSS Scores Often Fail to Reflect Real-World Risks - Elementrica
    Recent analyses suggest that CVSS scores may not always provide a realistic picture of the actual risks posed by vulnerabilities in real-world scenarios.
  63. [63]
    Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures | Blog - VulnCheck
    Dec 4, 2024 · Updates: CVE records may be updated over time, as additional details become available, such as updated severity ratings or additional references ...
  64. [64]
    Vulnerability Assessments: How They Work, Benefits & Limitations
    Vulnerability assessments use automated scans to achieve surface-level visibility into an organization's digital attack surface.
  65. [65]
    CVE trouble and vulnerability management - Blog Detectify
    Jan 5, 2023 · There is one CVE Record for each vulnerability in the catalog. The vulnerabilities are discovered then assigned and published by organizations ...
  66. [66]
    Why exploitability matters in vulnerability management - Flexera
    Jul 10, 2025 · By prioritizing vulnerabilities based on real-world ...Missing: limitations | Show results with:limitations<|separator|>
  67. [67]
    Detecting and Augmenting Missing Key Aspects in Vulnerability ...
    In this article, we first investigate 133,639 vulnerability reports in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database over the past 20 years. We find ...Missing: inaccuracies | Show results with:inaccuracies
  68. [68]
    MITRE CVE Program: A Single Point of Failure for Global ...
    May 3, 2025 · Early 2025 saw the industry facing potentially halted operations in the CVE program due to delayed contract renewals. Centralization Risks: Sole ...Missing: growth | Show results with:growth
  69. [69]
    [PDF] The Flaw Within: Identifying CVSS Score Discrepancies in the NVD
    This indicates, logically, there must be one or multiple entries assigned inaccurate severity scores, or it might be incorrect descriptions which should not ...
  70. [70]
    [PDF] The Flaw Within: Identifying CVSS Score Discrepancies in the NVD
    Our work focuses on the inconsistencies within semantically similar vulnerability descriptions; we observe that different CVE entries can contain the same ...
  71. [71]
    The Realities of AppSec Risk Management using CVE and CVSS
    Oct 16, 2025 · And in some cases, the inconsistencies become absurd. Here is an example where a single vulnerability was duplicated in the CVE database.Missing: inaccuracies | Show results with:inaccuracies
  72. [72]
    Inconsistency in different vulnerability databases | by afdesk - Medium
    Apr 18, 2023 · One of the main causes of CVE inconsistency is the fact that different databases have different criteria for including and categorizing ...
  73. [73]
    [PDF] Towards the Detection of Inconsistencies in Public Security ...
    In this paper, we propose a novel system to automatically detect inconsistent information between the fully standard- ized NVD database and the unstructured CVE ...
  74. [74]
    [PDF] An Investigation into Vulnerability Databases
    May 31, 2020 · Surprisingly, many reports were inconsistent with respect to scores and detail descriptions. In the scoring system CVSS version 3.0, for example ...
  75. [75]
    Breaking the Vulnerability Backlog: Why Prioritization Without ...
    In 2024, security researchers published over 40,000 common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVEs), marking a 38% year-over-year increase.Missing: issues | Show results with:issues
  76. [76]
    CVE backlog update: The NVD struggles as attackers change tactics
    What's behind the backlog? Budget cuts are partially responsible for CVE analysis issues. As noted by Security Magazine, NIST funding was cut by 12% ...
  77. [77]
    CVE Database Crisis: What Every Security Professional Must Know
    Apr 16, 2025 · The CVE database played a key role in detecting and handling major cyber incidents like WannaCry, SolarWinds Sunburst, and Log4j attacks.
  78. [78]
    Delayed Vulnerability Analysis Puts America at a Cybersecurity ...
    Mar 21, 2025 · It faces a growing backlog to process data in its vulnerability repository, which publicly shares information assessing and detailing mitigation ...
  79. [79]
    NIST Still Struggling to Clear Vulnerability Submissions Backlog in ...
    Mar 24, 2025 · The effects of the backlog are already being felt in vulnerability management circles where NVD data promises an enriched source of truth.
  80. [80]
    The CVE Program Nearly Went Dark—Here's What MSPs Should ...
    Apr 17, 2025 · The vendor issues an advisory, but there's no CVE ID assigned yet because of backlogs caused by funding issues. The consequences would be ...
  81. [81]
    NIST Facing Challenges in Managing CVE Backlog in National ...
    Mar 25, 2025 · NIST is grappling with the daunting task of managing an increasing CVE backlog amidst rising vulnerability disclosures.
  82. [82]
    From Firmware to Factory Floor: Why Made in America Depends on ...
    May 15, 2025 · ID Gaps: Lesser-known or proprietary systems may not get CVE IDs, leaving gaps in tracking. Imagine a critical flaw in a niche medical device ...<|separator|>
  83. [83]
  84. [84]
    2022 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses - Mitre
    Jun 21, 2023 · Third, there is inherent bias in the CVE/NVD dataset due to the set of vendors that report vulnerabilities and the languages that are used by ...
  85. [85]
    [PDF] Buying Into the Bias: Why Vulnerability Sta6s6cs Suck
    More vendor types? (if CVE doesn't know for sure, maybe you don't know for ... CVE: show increase in desc size. • Amount of details. • Descrip6on, other ...
  86. [86]
    [PDF] Vulnerability Type Distributions in CVE
    May 22, 2007 · While CVE data is incomplete, it is estimated that it is 80% complete relative to all major mailing lists and vulnerability databases, with the ...
  87. [87]
    The Evolving CVE Landscape | F5 Labs
    Feb 28, 2023 · Approximately nine months later, the first CVE list was birthed into the world in September of 1999 with a mere 321 vulnerabilities. My, how ...<|separator|>
  88. [88]
    Funding Expires for Key Cyber Vulnerability Database
    Apr 15, 2025 · The CVE contract available at USAspending.gov says the project was awarded approximately $40 million last year. Former CISA Director Jen ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  89. [89]
    CVE program gets a last-minute save, maybe a new home
    Apr 16, 2025 · MITRE has received roughly $30 million since 2023 from Homeland Security to run CVE and associated programs. News broke yesterday that the ...Missing: historical | Show results with:historical
  90. [90]
    CISA extends MITRE-backed CVE contract hours before its lapse
    Apr 16, 2025 · The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency extended its contract for the MITRE-backed Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures Program late Tuesday night.
  91. [91]
    MITRE warns of potential cybersecurity disruptions as US ...
    Apr 16, 2025 · MITRE warns of potential cybersecurity disruptions as US government funding for CVE, CWE programs set to expire.
  92. [92]
    CVE wake-up call: What's ahead after the MITRE funding fiasco
    Apr 17, 2025 · MITRE's potential CVE program exit would cause chaos, leaving companies relying on historical records, impacting vulnerability management ...
  93. [93]
    CVE Program Funding Disruption and Its Impact on Cybersecurity
    Apr 23, 2025 · The CVE program, a critical global standard for identifying and cataloging software vulnerabilities, risked disruption after 25 years of operation.
  94. [94]
    Statement from Matt Hartman on the CVE Program - CISA
    Apr 23, 2025 · To set the record straight, there was no funding issue, but rather a contract administration issue that was resolved prior to a contract lapse.Missing: reliance | Show results with:reliance
  95. [95]
    CONTRACT to THE MITRE CORPORATION - USAspending
    View a summary page of this 2024 CONTRACT to THE MITRE CORPORATION from the Department of Homeland Security.
  96. [96]
    Mitre CVE program regains funding as renewal deal reached
    Apr 16, 2025 · The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said it reached an agreement to renew funding for a software vulnerability program.Missing: details | Show results with:details
  97. [97]
    The Mandate, Mission, and Momentum to lead the CVE Program ...
    Sep 10, 2025 · The Mandate, Mission, and Momentum to lead the CVE Program into the Future belongs to CISA. Released. September 10, 2025. By Nick Andersen, ...
  98. [98]
    Behind the struggle for control of the CVE program | CyberScoop
    Following a funding scare that nearly shuttered the CVE program, outside experts and CISA are positioning to take charge of the 25-year-old ...
  99. [99]
    The Global Cyber Vulnerability Database Cannot Run on Unstable ...
    which assigns standardized identifiers used worldwide to track and manage cyber ...<|separator|>
  100. [100]
    US funding running out for critical cyber vulnerability database ...
    Apr 15, 2025 · The defense and research-focused nonprofit MITRE Corporation says funding from the U.S. government runs out on Wednesday for it to maintain ...Missing: crisis | Show results with:crisis
  101. [101]
    CISA attempts to assert control over CVE in vision outline
    Sep 12, 2025 · The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) nearly let the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program lapse earlier ...
  102. [102]
    Cyber experts ponder a non-government future for the CVE program
    Aug 11, 2025 · ... CVE program's reliance on U.S. government funding. When the MITRE contract was on the verge of lapsing, members of the CVE program's board ...
  103. [103]
    Making Sense of Open-Source Vulnerability Databases: NVD, OSV ...
    Jul 26, 2024 · NVD: a comprehensive vulnerability database. The CVE list maintained by MITRE is continuously synchronized to the NVD (National Vulnerability ...Missing: methods | Show results with:methods<|separator|>
  104. [104]
    CVE Program Funding Concerns and Emerging Alternatives
    Apr 16, 2025 · Diversify your threat intelligence sources: Supplement CVE data with: CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) · Track Alternative ...
  105. [105]
    Beyond CVE: The hunt for other sources of vulnerability intel
    Jun 30, 2025 · There are other options for organizations to diversify their sources of vulnerability information including vendor advisories, GitHub ...
  106. [106]
    [PDF] CVE Quality for a Cyber Secure Future - CISA
    Sep 10, 2025 · In August 2025, 79.9% of all CNAs that published a CVE Record in the previous six months included CVSS and CWE information in their publication ...
  107. [107]
    CISA 'fired up' to chart new vision for CVE program
    Sep 11, 2025 · In the vision document, CISA said it's exploring diversified funding sources for CVE, modernizing CVE infrastructure and expanding partnerships ...Missing: reforms post-
  108. [108]
    Future of CVE Program in limbo as CISA, board members debate ...
    Sep 19, 2025 · The CISA documents last week appeared to assert control over the CVE Program after subcontractor MITRE Corporation warned in April that the U.S ...
  109. [109]
    CISA Strategic Focus set to guide CVE program into 'quality era ...
    Sep 12, 2025 · “Under CISA's leadership and sponsorship, the CVE Program has continually evolved to reinvigorate, modernize, and strengthen the framework. CISA ...
  110. [110]
    Events - CVE: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
    Event Time: 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM EDT (UTC-4) both days. This workshop for CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) is free, but registration is required. The ...
  111. [111]
    Program Overview / CVE Program & FIRST VulnCon 2025 - FIRST.org
    The CVE Program & FIRST VulnCon 2025 runs from April 7th to 10th, with sessions in various rooms. Schedule is subject to change.
  112. [112]
    Join the CVE Program's Automation Working Group (AWG)!
    Sep 30, 2025 · Looking ahead, the group is focused on further modernizing CVE Program services, improving efficiency for CNAs, and expanding capabilities for ...Missing: developments | Show results with:developments
  113. [113]
    Metrics - CVE: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
    Comparison of published CVE Records by quarter for all years from 1999 to present. A CVE Record contains descriptive data, (i.e., a brief description and at ...
  114. [114]
    CVE Program Report for Quarter 2 Calendar Year (Q2 CY) 2025
    Sep 3, 2025 · As shown in the table below, CVE Program production was 11,701 CVE Records for Q2 CY 2025. This is a 3% decrease from the 12,009 records ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  115. [115]
    [PDF] CVE at a Crossroads: A Blueprint for the Next 25 Years
    Oct 8, 2025 · For much of the CVE Program's history, MITRE decided whether and when to create a new. CVE Record for a particular software flaw. However ...
  116. [116]
    CISA weighs 'alternative funding sources' to preserve cyber ...
    Sep 11, 2025 · The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures Program faced a near complete lapse in funding in April when MITRE, the research giant that funds much ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  117. [117]
    CVE Foundation Launched to Secure the Future of the CVE Program
    Apr 16, 2025 · Announcing the formal establishment of the CVE Foundation to ensure the long-term viability, stability, and independence of the CVE Program.Missing: diversification measures
  118. [118]
    Government Extends CVE Funding as New Foundation Forms
    Apr 16, 2025 · The CVE ticker will keep counting new vulnerabilities each day, and the registries and feeds will keep us all informed of what needs fixing in ...
  119. [119]
    CISA Strategic Focus: CVE Quality for a Cyber Secure Future
    Sep 10, 2025 · This detailed roadmap identifies priorities that will elevate the program to meet the needs of the global cybersecurity community. ... CISA Common ...Missing: sustainability proposals
  120. [120]
  121. [121]
    CVE Program Celebrates 25 Years of Impact!
    Oct 22, 2024 · At cve.org, we provide the authoritative reference method for publicly known information-security vulnerabilities and exposures.Missing: standardization | Show results with:standardization
  122. [122]
    [PDF] CVE Program 25th Anniversary Report October 2024
    Over the past 25 years, the CVE Program has been established as the de–facto international standard for vulnerability identification and the backbone of the.Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  123. [123]
    [PDF] An Empirical Analysis of Software Vendors' Patch Release Behavior
    Thus the major goal of our paper is to empirically estimate (i) the key factors that affect vendors' patch release decision, and (ii) whether actual disclosure ...
  124. [124]
    A Large-Scale Empirical Study of Security Patches
    In this work we conduct a large-scale empirical study of security patches, investigating more than 4,000 bug fixes for over 3,000 vulnerabilities that affected ...
  125. [125]
    (PDF) Impact of vulnerability disclosure and patch availability-an ...
    This paper is an attempt to empirically test the impact of vulnerability information disclosure and availability of patches on attackers' tendency to exploit ...
  126. [126]
    Patching zero-day vulnerabilities: an empirical analysis
    Nov 18, 2021 · Findings show that a zero-day vulnerability is more likely to be patched on time if the vulnerability results in a scope change and affects more vendors, ...
  127. [127]
    [PDF] Historical Analysis of Exploit Availability Timelines - USENIX
    May 14, 2020 · We analyze all vulnerabilities with CVE-IDs since two common reposi- tories of public exploit data became available and find that. 4.1%±0.1% of ...Missing: Exposures | Show results with:Exposures
  128. [128]
    Understanding Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE)
    Feb 28, 2024 · Common vulnerabilities include programming errors, design flaws, misconfigurations, and cryptographic weaknesses. Vulnerabilities may be ...Missing: problems | Show results with:problems<|separator|>
  129. [129]
    Vulnerability-Affected Versions Identification: How Far Are We? - arXiv
    In this paper, we present the first comprehensive empirical study of vulnerability-affected versions identification. We curate a high-quality benchmark of ...