Shedding Light on CVSS Scoring Inconsistencies: A User-Centric Study on Evaluating Widespread Security Vulnerabilities
Julia Wunder, Andreas Kurtz, Christian Eichenmüller, Freya Gassmann, Zinaida Benenson
Abstract
The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is a popular method for evaluating the severity of vulnerabilities in vulnerability management. In the evaluation process, a numeric score between 0 and 10 is calculated, 10 being the most severe (critical) value. The goal of CVSS is to provide comparable scores across different evaluators. However, previous works indicate that CVSS might not reach this goal: If a vulnerability is evaluated by several analysts, their scores often differ. This raises the following questions: Are CVSS evaluations consistent? Which factors influence CVSS assessments? We systematically investigate these questions in an online survey with 196 CVSS users. We show that specific CVSS metrics are inconsistently evaluated for widespread vulnerability types, including Top 3 vulnerabilities from the "2022 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses" list. In a follow-up survey with 59 participants, we found that for the same vulnerabilities from the main study, 68% of these users gave different severity ratings. Our study reveals that most evaluators are aware of the problematic aspects of CVSS, but they still see CVSS as a useful tool for vulnerability assessment. Finally, we discuss possible reasons for inconsistent evaluations and provide recommendations on improving the consistency of scoring.
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 87d0f19e-c7fe-4bfa-ac48-cfaae1fdd9e2Cited by top-tier papers3
- Tool-Assisted CVSS Vulnerability Scoring: A Controlled Quantitative Study of Human AssessmentSiqi Zhang, Minjie Cai, Lianying Zhao, Xavier de Carné de Carnavalet et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Confusing Value with Enumeration: Studying the Use of CVEs in AcademiaMoritz Schloegel, Daniel Klischies, Simon Koch, David Klein et al.USENIX Security 2025
- Context Matters: Qualitative Insights into Developers' Approaches and Challenges with Software Composition AnalysisElizabeth Lin, Sparsha Gowda, William Enck, Dominik WermkeUSENIX Security 2025
Builds on3
- Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative ExecutionPaul Kocher, Jann Horn, Anders Fogh, Daniel Genkin et al.S&P 2019 · 2,435 citations
- Meltdown: Reading Kernel Memory from User SpaceMoritz Lipp, Michael Schwarz, Daniel Gruss, Thomas Prescher et al.USENIX Security 2018 · 1,456 citations
- Towards the Detection of Inconsistencies in Public Security Vulnerability ReportsYing Dong, Wenbo Guo, Yueqi Chen, Xinyu Xing et al.USENIX Security 2019 · 149 citations
Related papers
- Conflicting Scores, Confusing Signals: An Empirical Study of Vulnerability Scoring SystemsViktoria Koscinski, Mark Nelson, Ahmet Okutan, Robert Falso et al.CCS 2025 · 1 citation
- Propagation-Based Vulnerability Impact Assessment for Software Supply ChainsBonan Ruan, Zhiwei Lin, Jiahao Liu, Chuqi Zhang et al.ASE 2025 · 2 citations
- OS-Aware Vulnerability Prioritization via Differential Severity AnalysisQiushi Wu, Yue Xiao, Xiaojing Liao, Kangjie LuUSENIX Security 2022
- DeepCVA: Automated Commit-level Vulnerability Assessment with Deep Multi-task LearningTriet Huynh Minh Le, David Hin, Roland Croft, Muhammad Ali BabarASE 2021 · 62 citations
- A Grounded Theory Based Approach to Characterize Software Attack SurfacesSara Moshtari, Ahmet Okutan, Mehdi MirakhorliICSE 2022 · 7 citations
