A recent funding scare has exposed the fragility of global vulnerability tracking infrastructure – and what it means for cybersecurity resilience.
For nearly 25 years, the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) programme has formed the backbone of global vulnerability management. It provides a universal identifier for vulnerabilities, helping organisations worldwide to assess their exposure, coordinate responses and reduce risk.
That stability was shaken this week as MITRE, the long-standing steward of the CVE programme, announced a sudden pause in funding. While emergency support in the form of an 11-month contract extension from the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has prevented immediate disruption, the incident has exposed a structural fragility in the global cybersecurity ecosystem – one that calls for urgent reflection and action.
A single point of failure
The CVE programme acts as the industry’s shared language for vulnerability disclosure. When a researcher or organisation uncovers a new vulnerability, it is submitted for review and – if validated – receives a standardised CVE identifier. This makes it possible to quickly understand the nature of a threat, identify whether it impacts your systems, and prioritise patching efforts.
The use of CVE IDs is deeply embedded in security tooling and workflows. Vulnerability scanners, security information and event management (SIEM) systems, and third-party risk platforms rely on CVE data to function effectively. Organisations use CVEs to automate detection, scoring and response – and to communicate consistently across teams and suppliers.
Had the CVE programme halted, newly discovered vulnerabilities would have gone uncatalogued. Automated patch management processes would have broken. Detection rules would have failed to trigger. And incident response efforts could have been delayed or derailed. The threat was not theoretical – it was a moment away.
Fragmentation and confusion
In the absence of a central authority like CVE, we risk a fragmented future – multiple unofficial databases, each with their own naming conventions and classification logic. That creates confusion, misalignment between tools and delays in incident handling.
The ripple effects would be particularly severe for:
- Critical infrastructure providers, such as healthcare and utilities, where patching protocols depend on CVE-backed automation
- SMEs, which rely heavily on public, free feeds and automated tools to manage security
- Under-resourced security teams, which may lack the capacity to pivot to alternative systems quickly
A systemic issue, not a one-off event
This is not the first time core cybersecurity infrastructure has shown signs of strain. The 2014 Heartbleed vulnerability in OpenSSL revealed a similar fragility – with critical software maintained by a single developer and minimal funding. That wake-up call led to the creation of the Core Infrastructure Initiative (CII) to sustain vital open-source projects.
Now, in response to this CVE funding scare, the CVE Foundation has launched to support the long-term stability and independence of the programme. This is a positive move, but long-term success will depend on industry-wide collaboration and consistent investment.
Are there alternatives?
There are public and commercial alternatives to CVE – such as NIST’s National Vulnerability Database (NVD) and VulDB – but many are tightly interlinked with the CVE programme itself or lack widespread industry support.
The Computer Incident Response Center Luxembourg have also positioned GCVE as a decentralised alternative, using numbering authorities similarly to the CVE program but without relying on a centralised block distribution system or rigid policy enforcement. But for now, governance, trust and scalability remain unresolved challenges.
The short-term reality is this: there is no clear replacement for the CVE system today. Resilience must come from reinforcing what exists – and planning for future-proof alternatives.
What organisations should do now
Security and IT leaders should use this moment to take stock:
- Assess dependencies on CVE data across tooling, patching processes and risk reporting
- Monitor developments around the CVE Foundation and potential changes in governance
- Engage with vendors and industry bodies shaping the future of vulnerability tracking
LRQA’s perspective
The instability around the CVE programme is a reminder that even the most established elements of the cybersecurity ecosystem cannot be taken for granted. In a world of increasing complexity and shrinking response windows, resilience depends on more than just good tooling – it requires trusted insight, continuous assurance and the ability to adapt.
At LRQA, we help organisations strengthen their cybersecurity posture through a connected portfolio of services – from strategy and governance to security testing, compliance, training and 24/7 threat monitoring. Whether you are reassessing your vulnerability management capabilities or looking to embed a more robust, risk-led approach, we can help.
To discuss how LRQA can support your cybersecurity strategy, get in touch with our team.