A Vuln is a Vuln, unless the CVE for it is after Feb 12, 2024

Published: 2024-04-17
Last Updated: 2024-04-18 13:54:16 UTC
by Rob VandenBrink (Version: 1)
0 comment(s)

The NVD (National Vulnerability Database) announcement page (https://nvd.nist.gov/general/news/nvd-program-transition-announcement) indicates a growing backlog of vulnerabilities that are causing delays in their process.

CVE's are issued by CNA's (CVE Numbering Authorities), and the "one version of the truth" for CVE's is at Mitre.org (the V5 list is here https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5).  There are roughly 100 (and growing) CNA's that have blocks of numbers and can issue CVEs on their own recognizance, along with MITRE who is the "root CNA".  The CVE process seems to be alive and well (thanks for that MITRE!)

In the past NVD typically researched each CVE as it came in, and the CVE would become a posted vulnerability, enriched with additional fields and information (ie metadata), within hours(ish).  This additional metadata makes for a MUCH more useful reference - the vuln now contains the original CVE, vendor links, possibly mitigations and workarounds, links to other references (CWE's for instance), sometimes PoC's.  The vulnerability entry also contains the CPE information, which makes for a great index if you use this data in a scanner, IPS or SIEM (or anything else for that matter).  For instance, compare the recent Palo Alto issue's CVE and NVD entries:

This enrichment process has slowed significantly starting on Feb 12 - depending on the CVE this process may be effectively stopped entirely.  This means that if your scanner, SIEM or SOC process needs that additional metadata, a good chunk of the last 2 months worth of vulnerabilities essentially have not yet happened as far as the metadata goes.  You can see how this is a problem for lots of vendors that produce scanners, firewalls, Intrustion Prevention Systems and SIEMs - along with all of their customers (which is essentially all of us).

Feb 12 coincidentally is just ahead of the new FedRAMP requirements (Rev 5) being released https://www.fedramp.gov/blog/2023-05-30-rev-5-baselines-have-been-approved-and-released/.  Does this match up mean that NIST perhaps had some advance notice, and they maybe have outsourcers that don't (yet) meet these FedRAMP requirements?  Or is NIST itself not yet in compliance with those regulations? The timing doesn't match for dev's running behind on the CVE Format change - that's not until June.  Lots of maybes, but nobody seems to know for sure what's going on here and why - if you have real information on this, please post in our comment form!  Enquiring minds (really) need to know!

=============== Addition ===============

One of our readers notes that the Feb 12 date corresponds closely to Kernel.org being added as a CNA (https://www.cve.org/Media/News/item/news/2024/02/13/kernel-org-Added-as-CNA), with (at the time) an anticipated floodlike rate of Linux CVEs being expected after that.  If that's the case, this may just be NVD saying "stand by while we hire some new folks and get them plugged into our process", or it could also be "stand by while we negotiate with this new CNA about what constitutes a CVE". 

If this pause is related to that CNA onboarding, hopefully we won't be standing by too much longer ...

Rob VandenBrink

Keywords: CVE NVD
0 comment(s)


Diary Archives