Understanding CVE: The Backbone of Vulnerability Disclosure
The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program has been a cornerstone of global cybersecurity for nearly 25 years. Developed in 1999 by the MITRE Corporation and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), CVE introduced a standardized identifier for publicly known cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Each CVE ID—like CVE-2021-44228 (Log4Shell)—became a shorthand for incident response teams, security researchers, vendors, and enterprises to communicate and patch threats quickly.
As of May 2025, the CVE program had assigned over 220,000 vulnerabilities across software, hardware, IoT devices, and cloud environments. It enabled widespread collaboration by maintaining a public list that anyone—from global SOC teams to indie developers—could access for free.
What Just Happened?
In a shocking revelation on May 29, 2025, MITRE announced a “temporary pause” in new CVE assignments, citing a critical shortfall in federal funding. The announcement stunned the global security community. According to MITRE’s public statement, their resources are currently unable to sustain the growing volume of submissions and manage the over 200 CVE Numbering Authorities (CNAs) and 38 Root CNAs worldwide.
Cybersecurity researcher Kevin Beaumont tweeted:
“CVE is how we triage vulnerability disclosures across the globe. Shutting it down is like pulling fire alarms out of buildings.“
Why Does This Matter?
The consequences of CVE going dark are wide-ranging:
- Slowed Vulnerability Management: Without CVE IDs, organizations lose a central system to prioritize and coordinate patching efforts.
- Vendor Delays: Many vendors rely on CVE references in their advisories. Delays in assignments affect security bulletins and remediation workflows.
- Tool Disruption: SIEMs, scanners (like Qualys, Nessus), and endpoint tools rely on CVE IDs for signature updates and threat intelligence mapping.
- Erosion of Trust: This situation exposes how even foundational cybersecurity infrastructure can falter under weak funding models.
According to CISA’s 2024 report, over 76% of all publicly exploited vulnerabilities in the wild had been assigned CVE identifiers, demonstrating how central the program is to proactive defense.
Are There Alternatives and What’s Next?
While the shutdown is labeled “temporary,” it has sparked debate about the future of vulnerability disclosure. Some notable alternatives and potential directions include:
- NVD (National Vulnerability Database): Maintained by NIST, it depends on CVE IDs but provides detailed analysis post-disclosure. It’s now partially in limbo.
- Open Source Vulnerability (OSV) Database: Created by Google and supported by GitHub and OSS-Fuzz, OSV focuses on open-source components and uses machine learning for triage.
- Security Advisories Direct from Vendors: Cisco, Microsoft, and others issue their own IDs, but this leads to fragmentation and loss of centralized oversight.
- Decentralized CVE-like Systems: There’s growing talk around creating a community-led CVE 2.0, possibly on a blockchain or consortium model, funded collaboratively by major cloud and software vendors.
The industry may need a multi-stakeholder governance model—akin to ICANN—to keep CVE independent, well-funded, and neutral.
Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for the Cybersecurity Industry
The pause of the CVE program is more than a budget issue—it’s a crisis of digital public infrastructure. Just like DNS or TLS, the CVE system has become an invisible pillar of the internet. Its halt should prompt serious reflection from governments, vendors, and global tech alliances.
It’s time to reimagine vulnerability disclosure as a global commons, not just a U.S. federal initiative. The industry must invest in sustainable, open, and interoperable systems for the next generation of cyber defense.
If we fail to act now, the world may wake up tomorrow with zero-days it can’t even name.
