How good are you at scoring security vulnerabilities, really? Boffins seek infosec pros to take rating skill survey

Real-world CVSS figures are a little variable, or so these folks reckon


A German academic is running a study into the effectiveness of vulnerability scores – and is hoping the research will shed more light on the occasionally controversial system.

By running a survey on whether infosec bods think the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is a useful tool for assessing security flaws, Dr Zinaida Benenson of Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg's IT Security Infrastructure Lab in Germany hopes to further the infosec world's understanding of how reliable the system really is.

While the survey hopes to gain up to 300 respondents, Benenson was coy about precisely what she's hoping to prove or disprove, but she did drop The Register a hint about the current state of CVSS scoring.

In preliminary research, Benenson and her fellow researchers asked a handful of infosec bods to allocate CVSS scores to 10 sample vulnerabilities, as a way of testing how consistent their scoring was.

"I'm not naming the vulnerabilities, because some of them are now in the survey, but just to give you a feeling..." she said, sending us a partial table of scores from that exercise:

vuln 1: 4.7, 5.4, 6.1, 6.3, 7.3, 7.5
vuln 2: 3.0, 4.8, 5.0, 5.4, 6.5, 7.1, 7.6, 8.4
vuln 3: 4.7, 6.8, 7.2, 8.2, 9.0, 9.8
[...]
vuln 7: 3.1, 4.2, 4.8, 5.3, 6.5, 7.5, 8.3, 9.3
[...]
vuln 10: 0.0., 3.7, 5.3, 8.2, 8.8

"Some of the scores were of course the same for different experts, but on the whole, there wasn't much agreement," Benenson added. "And I'm not picking especially weird vulnerabilities, all 10 of them were rated like this."

The CVSS survey can be found here.

CVSS was invented in 2005 when Cisco, Microsoft, Qualys, Symantec and others joined forces to announce the scoring system we all know and, er, love. In the decade-and-a-half since then, CVSS has become the standard at-a-glance measure of a given vulnerability's severity, with the worst reaching 10.0 on the system's ten-point scoring scale.

Scores are commonly allocated to vulnerabilities along with a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposure (CVE) number, which has led to the undesirable practice of researchers "collecting" high-severity CVEs by using dubious methods.

A recent example of a 10.0-rated CVEs was a VMware vCenter vuln that allowed anyone at all to remotely create an admin-level account. Lower down the scale, but still significant, was a CVSS 7.8-graded flaw in ConnectWise's Automate product that allowed someone with user credentials to remotely run commands on an Automate instance.

Referring to the table of varied CVSS scores she showed us, Benenson said: "We are not saying that CVSS experts are not skilful. We are trying to find factors behind the fact that the scores are so different. Actually, the scores are supposed to be the same across different actors; this is the idea of CVSS." ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021