Dailydave mailing list archives

Re: CVSS is the worst compression algorithm ever


From: Thierry Zoller <thierry () zoller lu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:49:07 +0100

CVSS needs to be embedded as a parameter/criteria in a Risk Evaluation;
it is not a risk indicator in itself and should not be used for patch
prioritisation in itself.

The importance of the asset (business process it supports, revenue
generated by adjacent processes etc.) .i.e the "criticality"[1] of an
asset needs to be taken into account when risk scoring and prioritising
remediation.

[1] Of course other factors like for example legal and regulatory
requirements (and possible fines) i.e. (Secondary losses) are amongst
other parameters to consider.

Thierry Zoller
http://blog.zoller.lu

Am 10.01.2019 um 17:02 schrieb Adrian Sanabria:
Okay, we keep touching on this point, that CVSS isn't intended to score
risk, just vulnerability severity. I'm having a hard time seeing what
value there is in having a vulnerability score that doesn't reflect
risk. What use does it have?

Or is that exactly what we're saying? That since it doesn't reflect
risk, it's essentially useless. If that's the conclusion, I'm on the
same page.

--Adrian 

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 9:56 AM Wim Remes <wremes () gmail com
<mailto:wremes () gmail com> wrote:

    Hi,

    Bruce really hits the nail on the head here. CVSS != Risk. To
    broaden that discussion and not waste too many words, I’ll reference
    FAIR (Factor Analysis of Information
    Risk, https://www.fairinstitute.org/what-is-fair) to indicate where
    “Vulnerability” contributes to an eventual quantitative risk valuation. 

    I also always considered CVSS scoring to be qualitative instead of
    quantitative and the numbers to be ordinal. That makes them fine for
    ranking vulnerability, but horrible to perform math on (Jet Fuel x
    Peanut Butter = Shiny — hi Alex Hutton!). 

    That said, it all boils down to a point I’ve been rapping on about
    for a long long time now. Organizations should not expect third
    party penetration testers to make an accurate assessment of risk.
    The data provided by a third party penetration tester should feed
    into your risk management framework, that is also fed with
    internally acquired business data, to produce (or adjust) a risk
    valuation. It would be helpful if we, as consultants, wouldn’t
    pretend that we (a) can come up with any form of credible risk score
    during such assessments and (b) are delivering scoring that can help
    with prioritization in a business context without additional effort
    on the client side. On the other hand, clients that have a risk
    management framework that can actually take vulnerability scores and
    use them to generate risk scores should be clear in what they expect
    from us. If you are asked, whether in an RFP or an SoW, to produce a
    risk score for your findings at the very least you should be
    returning a question for asset valuation and threat community
    descriptions. 

    Cheers,
    Wim



    On 8 Jan 2019, at 18:33, Monroe, Bruce <bruce.monroe () intel com
    <mailto:bruce.monroe () intel com>> wrote:

    Hi Dave,____
     ____
    I participate on the CVSS SIG being ran out of FIRST that is
    working on improvements to CVSS. So do a number of people out of
    CERT CC, NIST, MITRE along with a good representation of
    industry. A number of us provided feedback on this paper. CVSS is
    for scoring the severity of a vulnerability. CVSS does not = Risk.____
     ____
    My understanding is there is a number of government entities that
    believe CVSS does = Risk and are using it in a vacuum for that
    purpose. While the CVSS score is a single component - you also
    must look at how the vulnerable component is deployed, controls in
    place, value of asset, patching windows, likelihood of
    exploit,ect…there is a lot that goes into determining risk.____
     ____
    The fact that various USG entities is using CVSS wrong is an
    education issue imo. Yes CVSS has it’s issues with some
    of it’s elements being subjective eye of the beholder type items
    but that isn’t the reason for this paper…they’ve got USG people
    using it in a vacuum when it’s only a single element of
    determining your orgs risk due to a vulnerability. That isn’t a
    CVSS problem that’s a vulnerability management 101 problem.____
     ____
    Regards,____
    Bruce____
    Intel PSIRT____
     ____
    Opinions expressed are my own and may not reflect those of my
    employer.____
    *From:* Dailydave <dailydave-bounces () lists immunityinc com
    <mailto:dailydave-bounces () lists immunityinc com>> *On
    Behalf Of *Dave Aitel
    *Sent:* Tuesday, January 08, 2019 8:14 AM
    *To:* dailydave () lists immunityinc com
    <mailto:dailydave () lists immunityinc com>
    *Subject:* [Dailydave] CVSS is the worst compression algorithm
    ever____
    __ __

    I wanted to take a few minutes and do a quick highlight of a paper
    from CMU-CERT which I think most people have missed out
    on: https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/WhitePaper/2018_019_001_538372.pdf____

    Towards Improving CVSS - resources.sei.cmu.edu
    <https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/WhitePaper/2018_019_001_538372.pdf>____

    resources.sei.cmu.edu <http://resources.sei.cmu.edu>____

    SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
    REV-03.18.2016.0 Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public
    Release; Distribution Is Unlimited TOWARDS IMPROVING CVSS____

    It's almost as funny a read as their previous best work on how
    "clientless HTTPS VPNs are insanely dumb
    <https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/261869/> what were you thinking
    omg?" ____
    __ __
    They use a ton of big words in the paper to call CVSS out and give
    it a shellacking. Like most of you, we have extensive use of CVSS
    in our consulting practice and I've seen this stuff first hand.
    CVSS is of course just a buggy compression algorithm for taking
    complex qualitative data and then putting it on a number line. The
    paper has three angles here: ____

     1. Qualitative mappings into quantitative numbers are a silly
        thing to do, like people trying to do "social science" by
        using SurveyMonkey.____
     2. We're pretty sure that the compression algorithm is not, in
        fact, putting higher risk items as bigger numbers, which is
        the whole point of the thing.  ____
     3. Nobody is applying this in any sort of consistent way (which
        is probably impossible) which is ALSO the whole point of the
        thing.____

    __ __
    It's fine to have a lossy compression algorithm that emphasizes
    certain aspects of the input signal over others, of course, but an
    additional CERT/CC critique is we have no reason to think CVSS
    does this in any useful way. ____

    __ __

    There's definitely people in the CVSS process (who I will avoid
    calling out by name) who think ANY quantization is good. But read
    the paper and decide for yourself - because these are probably
    serious issues that are turning your entire risk org into a
    Garbage-In-Garbage-Out org...____

    __ __

    -dave____

    __ __

    _______________________________________________
    Dailydave mailing list
    Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
    <mailto:Dailydave () lists immunityinc com>
    https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave

    _______________________________________________
    Dailydave mailing list
    Dailydave () lists immunityinc com <mailto:Dailydave () lists immunityinc com>
    https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave


_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave


_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave

Current thread: