arXiv:2308.15259cs.CR
Shedding Light on CVSS Scoring Inconsistencies: A User-Centric Study on Evaluating Widespread Security Vulnerabilities
Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.
Abstract
The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is a popular method for evaluating the severity of vulnerabilities in vulnerability management. In the evaluation process, a numeric score between 0 and 10 is calculated, 10 being the most severe (critical) value. The goal of CVSS is to provide comparable scores across different evaluators. However, previous works indicate that CVSS might not reach this goal: If a vulnerability is evaluated by several analysts, their scores often differ. This raises the following questions: Are CVSS evaluations consistent? Which factors influence CVSS assessments? We systematically investigate these questions in an online survey with 196 CVSS users. We show that specific CVSS metrics are inconsistently evaluated for widespread vulnerability types, including Top 3 vulnerabilities from the "2022 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses" list. In a follow-up survey with 59 participants, we found that for the same vulnerabilities from the main study, 68% of these users gave different severity ratings. Our study reveals that most evaluators are aware of the problematic aspects of CVSS, but they still see CVSS as a useful tool for vulnerability assessment. Finally, we discuss possible reasons for inconsistent evaluations and provide recommendations on improving the consistency of scoring.
Well that's a poor article. Not used to that from LWN at all. I think this sentence sums up most of its problems: > In fact, the pull request for the fix was attached to the report, but that apparently made little difference in the assessment from NVD. - CVEs are about…
AachenView on HNParent context