Tool-Assisted CVSS Vulnerability Scoring: A Controlled Quantitative Study of Human Assessment
Siqi Zhang, Minjie Cai, Lianying Zhao, Xavier de Carné de Carnavalet, Fabio Massacci, Mengyuan Zhang
Abstract
Quantitative vulnerability assessment is central to security management, guiding how risks are prioritized and mitigated. Yet, severity scoring relies on human judgment and is therefore subject to differences in experience, interpretation, and diligence; prior work has even shown expert disagreement. We examine an NLP-based assistive tool that visualizes keyword cues during assessment. In a controlled survey of 389 participants recruited via Amazon MTurk and Prolific, we statistically analyze how participant skills/demographics, vulnerability characteristics, and tool support affect outcomes. Results show the tool does not consistently improve assessment accuracy across expertise levels, but can help for specific vulnerability types (e.g., CWE-787) and CVSS metrics (AC, PR, Scope), and can increase user confidence. Beyond immediate performance, the tool can support training for manual assessment tasks that are hard to automate, as learning effects yield significant improvements on subsequent tasks. This work informs the design of cybersecurity decision-support tools and motivates future research on security training and human-centered security.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 6e999f5b-1e2b-418f-9380-367d8f1bfa3cBuilds on4
- Towards the Detection of Inconsistencies in Public Security Vulnerability ReportsYing Dong, Wenbo Guo, Yueqi Chen, Xinyu Xing et al.USENIX Security 2019 · 149 citations
- Shedding Light on CVSS Scoring Inconsistencies: A User-Centric Study on Evaluating Widespread Security VulnerabilitiesJulia Wunder, Andreas Kurtz, Christian Eichenmüller, Freya Gassmann et al.S&P 2024 · 25 citations
- One size does not fit all: a grounded theory and online survey study of developer preferences for security warning typesAnastasia Danilova, Alena Naiakshina, Matthew SmithICSE 2020 · 24 citations
- Confusing Value with Enumeration: Studying the Use of CVEs in AcademiaMoritz Schloegel, Daniel Klischies, Simon Koch, David Klein et al.USENIX Security 2025
Related papers
- DeepCVA: Automated Commit-level Vulnerability Assessment with Deep Multi-task LearningTriet Huynh Minh Le, David Hin, Roland Croft, Muhammad Ali BabarASE 2021 · 62 citations
- Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code ContributionsHammond Pearce, Baleegh Ahmad, Benjamin Tan, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt et al.S&P 2022 · 725 citations
- VulChecker: Graph-based Vulnerability Localization in Source CodeYisroel Mirsky, George Macon, Michael D. Brown, Carter Yagemann et al.USENIX Security 2023
- LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and BenchmarksSaad Ullah, Mingji Han, Saurabh Pujar, Hammond Pearce et al.S&P 2024 · 167 citations
- Software Vulnerability Management in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: An Industry PerspectiveM. Mehdi Kholoosi, Triet Huynh Minh Le, M. Ali BabarICSE 2026
