Comment on CVE Board members launch the CVE Foundation, a dedicated, non-profit to continue identifying vulnerabilities, after the US ended its contract with Mitre

• billiam0202@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  This, exactly.

  The whole point of CVE is to make sure everyone is on the same page regarding exploits. That necessitates a single point of truth for the whole operation.

  source
• Telorand@reddthat.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  We need a single source of truth for this.

  So distribute it, like DNS. Have the CVE Foundation be the final authority, but relying solely upon them makes me uneasy.

  The CVE Foundation might currently be independent from the US government, but that doesn’t mean they’re not still subject to its whims. I think people underestimate just how awful things are or could get here, and “why is the government doing that stupid/heinous/bizarre thing” has become a daily mantra for many.

  CVE needs better protection from hostile governments, and distributing the system seems like the only way to achieve that

  source

  • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    That’s long since been the case, e.g. the Linux Kernel assigns its own CVE numbers, they’re a CNA. Which keeps the “root” CVS database completely out of the loop short of saying “this here is your namespace and scope”. Canonical is a CNA, Airbus is a CNA, both covering their own products. 453 in total.

    Still important to have a fallback though because not all projects are big enough to do that kind of stuff.

    source
  • IanTwenty@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    There is some distribution of effort/expertise at least:

    When an individual researcher or an organization discovers a new bug in some product, a CVE program partner — there are currently a few hundred across 40 countries — is asked to assess the vulnerability report and assign a unique CVE identifier for the flaw if and as necessary.

    theregister.com/…/homeland_security_funding_for_c…

    source
  • ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I think you might be overestimating how complex the system is. This isn’t collaborative, and it’s barely even dynamic. It’s essentially bookkeeping around a list of numbers and a zip file of text documents.

    github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/…/main.zip

    The reporting of the issues is already done by other people, they just rely on a central group to keep the numbers from colliding.

    www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-3576

    Not a whole lot there.

    Significantly more worrying is the nvd.

    nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-31161

    There’s additional data attached relating to not just the vulnerability, but exploitation and the system configuration that’s known to be exploitable.

    Up until now it was benign, as well as entirely unavoidable, for so much of the infrastructure of the Internet to be closely tied to the US government.

    source
  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Distribution, decentralization… those ideas only serve to add unnecessary complexity to a sensitive and critical infrastructure. Instead of tweeting the baby with the bathwater, let’s work toward making these institutions not rely on or be beholden to governments. Anything else is a poor man’s Band-Aid to the problem.

    FWIW, I agree with your concerns, but not the proposed solutions. Regardless, these are the types of discussions we all should be having for our critical infrastructure.

    source

    • Telorand@reddthat.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      let’s work toward making these institutions not rely on or be beholden to governments.

      I don’t see how that’s possible unless you use a system that’s resistant to governments (or moneyed interests). And the only systems like that are effectively outside their government’s power or jurisdiction. Otherwise, the right mix of ambitious or greedy people could eventually cause it to crumble.

      Did you have some other kind of system or plan in mind?

      source