upvote
CVSS is impossible to communicate effectively. We don't need a metric; I'm already going to have to read and assess the vulnerability to decide how I actually want to assess the risk given my infrastructure, so the number's not doing me any good.

This isn't just a CVSS issue: there have been a variety of attempts to reduce a risk score down to a single general number and they all end up as somewhere between marketing material, scare tactic, and junk science.

reply
> We don't need a metric; I'm already going to have to read and assess the vulnerability to decide how I actually want to assess the risk given my infrastructure, so the number's not doing me any good.

Would you say that vulnerability with CVSS score that points to low is equally important to verify and take care of than CVSS which points to critical?

reply
Yes. I believe that using CVSS scores as a first pass to decide which vulnerabilities to review is risky.

The most boring reason, even if you take CVSS scores at face value, is that in many cases it is possible to leverage multiple "low" severity vulnerabilities into a massive impact.

But the bigger reason is that CVSS scores are all over the place, and the people operating roulette wheel that generates them do not have any insight into any specific person's systems.

reply
Yes. It's amazing how supposedly security professionals only take the base score "as is" and never adjust.

Many GUI CVSS calculators exist just for this, it takes a minute to requalify a vuln and adjust its CVSS based on your specific environment.

This one for example is pretty basic but works well: https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0

> These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of base metrics and are assigned metric values based on the component placement in organization infrastructure.

reply