|
|
|
|
|
by adricnet
3923 days ago
|
|
Okay, so looking over the post they didn't feel like CVSS 2 was giving a clear indication of risk, and CVSS 3 isn't done yet and lacks perfection. That's sensible enough, I suppose. I hope they took more than a glance at what some other vendors are doing (EG Microsoft) before adding to what can already be a confusing collection of incompatible qualitative ratings :/ As noted by other commenters here a vague description of the category and some idea of the global risk, with a spot for you to add local risk seems a good tool here that serves both attack and defense with some balance. Oh, wait, we have that already in CVSS! edit: spell acronyms right! |
|
As an exercise, go to the CVSS v2 calculator and score Heartbleed. I bet you end up with something different than I do, and different from the next person to do it.
https://nvd.nist.gov/CVSS-v2-Calculator
Later
I polled my security friends Slack to do Heartbleed on CVSS3. Four different people, four very different scores, and the differences were significant; for instance: some people gave it integrity impact, others didn't. Also: CVSS version 3 remains as inscrutable as ever.