<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Software Vulnerability Analysis Using CPE and CVE · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1705.05347/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1705.05347/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Software Vulnerability Analysis Using CPE and CVE — mentioned by tkadlec</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15716539</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1705.05347:15716539</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:55:41 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Automated tooling is a must, yes. The riskiest part about relying on ONLY GH&amp;#x27;s solution (IMO) is the NVD/CVE limitation. I agree, CVE would be _awesome_ in theory. In reality, very few file for CVE&amp;#x27;s and so the coverage is iffy (~11% of npm package vulns and about ~67% of rubygem vulns https://snyk.io/stateofossecurity/). But it goes beyond that. There was a great paper earlier this year (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05347) that highlighted many other issues: lag between CVE and NVD (which is where all the useful info comes from), mismatched CPE&amp;#x27;s, nonexistent CPE&amp;#x27;s, etc. I would love to see us…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1705.05347/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item></channel></rss>
