39
GCVE: Global CVE Allocation System
(gcve.eu)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
39 points (100.0% liked)
Cybersecurity
7040 readers
88 users here now
c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.
THE RULES
Instance Rules
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Community Rules
- Idk, keep it semi-professional?
- Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
- Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.
If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.
Learn about hacking
Other security-related communities !databreaches@lemmy.zip !netsec@lemmy.world !securitynews@infosec.pub !cybersecurity@infosec.pub !pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
Notable mention to !cybersecuritymemes@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Isn't that already the case these days, or am I misunderstanding your comment? I mean, the NVD has been struggling with analysis for many months, and they typically provide their own CVSS 3.1 Base Score in addition to a CVSS Base Score from the CNA that issued the CVE Identifier. This means you can end up with one or two different CVSS Base Scores for the same CVE Identifier. As we know, both CVSS 3.1 and 4.0 have many limitations, including the fact that two security analysts can arrive at different assessments and thus different CVSS Base Scores. What I'm saying is that even now, you have to rely on the accuracy of the vulnerability assessment without question. There have been numerous instances where CVE Identifiers end up being marked as "DISPUTED."